Archive for category BILLS BEFORE CONGRESS AND SENATE

THE TREATIES AND OTHER NEFARIOUS DEEDS OBAMA WANTS TO SIGN INTO BEFORE HE GETS TOSSED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE

Must have had Shih-Tzu for lunch……….

Thanks to Dick Morris, this information has come to light about several sneaky things Obama and Hillary are up to; 1. International Criminal Court , 2. The Law of the Sea Treaty, 3. Small-arms control, 4. Outer Space Code of Conduct, 5. Rights of the Child.

This is truly scary stuff that if enacted would spell the end of the United States and its sovereignty.  This is no joke, especially if you consider the very real likelihood that this could all come to pass because,….if the Democrats in the Senate take a drubbing like I think they will, that will create the “Lame Duck” Senate that Obama would want and use to get all these treaties ratified, simply because all the outgoing Senators will not have anything to lose, they lost already, so who cares right?  I will be writing letters to my 2 Democrat Senators telling them to not even think about it!  I suggest everyone else do the same.  Click HERE and HERE for the information.

Advertisements

1 Comment

(UPDATED 022112 WITH REPLY FROM CONGRESSWOMAN JAMIE HERERRA-BUETLER – UPDATED 121911 WITH REPLY FROM SENATOR PATTY MURRAY) (UPDATED WITH VIDEO) WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE JAIME HERRERA-BEUTLER AND SENATORS CANTWELL AND MURRAY VOTES AWAY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS / CONGRESSIONAL VOTING RECORD ON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

OUR FUTURE HOMES? MAYBE............

As this article outlines, this bill is so draconian you might as well tear up the Bill of Rights.  I am appalled that Congress would do such a thing.  It is now legal to use the might of the United States military against its own citizens in the USA.  All the government needs to do is use the laws and guidelines, the very same ones I have been highlighting on this web site, determine that whatever you are doing falls within the “you might be a terrorist if” guidelines published by the DHA, and the next thing you know, you have the DOD breaking down your door at 3am and hauling you off to jail because simply, they can….  That IS where we are now thanks to the very people who we sent to DC to protect our rights and I am so very disappointed in my Rep.  She is a Freshman and was specifically sent to NOT do what she just did.  Check the list below to see how your Rep voted.  It is truly a bleak and black day in and for America………………

Votes by Representative

Name Voted
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5] Aye
Rep. Sandy Adams [R, FL-24] Aye
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4] Aye
Rep. Todd Akin [R, MO-2] Aye
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5] Aye
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4] Aye
Rep. Justin Amash [R, MI-3] Nay
Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2] Aye
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1] Aye
Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7] Aye
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43] Aye
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] Abstain
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6] Aye
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2] Nay
Rep. Lou Barletta [R, PA-11] Aye
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] Aye
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] Aye
Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6] Aye
Rep. Karen Bass [D, CA-33] Nay
Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2] Aye
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31] Nay
Rep. Dan Benishek [R, MI-1] Aye
Rep. Rick Berg [R, ND-0] Aye
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1] Aye
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] Aye
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13] Aye
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50] Aye
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9] Aye
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2] Aye
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1] Aye
Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1] Aye
Rep. Diane Black [R, TN-6] Aye
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7] Aye
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3] Nay
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1] Aye
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] Aye
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Aye
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3] Aye
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7] Aye
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8] Aye
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1] Aye
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1] Nay
Rep. Mo Brooks [R, AL-5] Aye
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10] Aye
Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3] Aye
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13] Aye
Rep. Larry Bucshon [R, IN-8] Nay
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle [R, NY-25] Aye
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26] Nay
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5] Nay
Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1] Aye
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44] Aye
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] Aye
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48] Nay
Rep. Francisco Canseco [R, TX-23] Aye
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] Aye
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2] Aye
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23] Aye
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8] Nay
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18] Aye
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3] Aye
Rep. John Carney [D, DE-0] Aye
Rep. André Carson [D, IN-7] Nay
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31] Aye
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6] Aye
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11] Aye
Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1] Aye
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3] Nay
Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6] Aye
Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32] Nay
Rep. David Cicilline [D, RI-1] Aye
Rep. Hansen Clarke [D, MI-13] Nay
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11] Nay
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1] Nay
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5] Nay
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] Nay
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6] Abstain
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6] Nay
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9] Nay
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4] Aye
Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11] Aye
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11] Aye
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] Nay
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Aye
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20] Aye
Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12] Nay
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2] Aye
Rep. Chip Cravaack [R, MN-8] Aye
Rep. Rick Crawford [R, AR-1] Aye
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4] Aye
Rep. Mark Critz [D, PA-12] Aye
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7] Aye
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28] Aye
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7] Aye
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D, MD-7] Nay
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4] Aye
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53] Aye
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7] Nay
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4] Nay
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1] Nay
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3] Nay
Rep. Jeff Denham [R, CA-19] Aye
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15] Aye
Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R, TN-4] Nay
Rep. Ted Deutch [D, FL-19] Aye
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21] Abstain
Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6] Aye
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15] Aye
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25] Aye
Rep. Bob Dold [R, IL-10] Aye
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Aye
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14] Nay
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26] Aye
Rep. Sean Duffy [R, WI-7] Aye
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3] Nay
Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Nay
Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4] Nay
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5] Nay
Rep. Renee Ellmers [R, NC-2] Aye
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8] Aye
Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17] Aye
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] Nay
Rep. Blake Farenthold [R, TX-27] Aye
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17] Nay
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2] Nay
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51] Abstain
Rep. Stephen Fincher [R, TN-8] Aye
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA-8] Aye
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Nay
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R, TN-3] Aye
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4] Aye
Rep. Bill Flores [R, TX-17] Aye
Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4] Nay
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1] Aye
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5] Aye
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] Nay
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2] Aye
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11] Aye
Rep. Marcia Fudge [D, OH-11] Nay
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24] Aye
Rep. John Garamendi [D, CA-10] Aye
Rep. Cory Gardner [R, CO-4] Aye
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5] Nay
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6] Aye
Rep. Bob Gibbs [R, OH-18] Aye
Rep. Chris Gibson [R, NY-20] Aye
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8] Abstain
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11] Aye
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1] Aye
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20] Aye
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] Nay
Rep. Paul Gosar [R, AZ-1] Nay
Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC-4] Nay
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12] Aye
Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9] Nay
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6] Aye
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9] Aye
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29] Aye
Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2] Aye
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9] Nay
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7] Nay
Rep. Michael Grimm [R, NY-13] Aye
Rep. Frank Guinta [R, NH-1] Aye
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2] Aye
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D, IL-4] Abstain
Rep. Janice Hahn [D, CA-36] Nay
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4] Aye
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa [D, HI-1] Aye
Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24] Aye
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3] Aye
Rep. Andy Harris [R, MD-1] Nay
Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R, MO-4] Aye
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23] Nay
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4] Aye
Rep. Nan Hayworth [R, NY-19] Aye
Rep. Joe Heck [R, NV-3] Aye
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1] Nay
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5] Aye
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2] Aye
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler [R, WA-3] Aye
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27] Aye
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4] Aye
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22] Nay
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa [D, TX-15] Nay
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2] Aye
Rep. Kathleen Hochul [D, NY-26] Aye
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17] Aye
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12] Nay
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15] Nay
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] Aye
Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1] Nay
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R, MI-2] Nay
Rep. Randy Hultgren [R, IL-14] Aye
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52] Aye
Rep. Robert Hurt [R, VA-5] Nay
Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1] Aye
Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2] Aye
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] Aye
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2] Nay
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] Aye
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2] Aye
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30] Abstain
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3] Aye
Rep. Bill Johnson [R, OH-6] Aye
Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4] Nay
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15] Nay
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3] Nay
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4] Aye
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9] Nay
Rep. William Keating [D, MA-10] Aye
Rep. Mike Kelly [R, PA-3] Aye
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5] Aye
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3] Aye
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5] Aye
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3] Aye
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1] Aye
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R, IL-11] Aye
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8] Aye
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2] Aye
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] Nay
Rep. Raúl Labrador [R, ID-1] Nay
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5] Aye
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7] Aye
Rep. Jeff Landry [R, LA-3] Aye
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2] Aye
Rep. James Lankford [R, OK-5] Aye
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2] Aye
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1] Aye
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4] Aye
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14] Abstain
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5] Aye
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9] Nay
Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12] Aye
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5] Nay
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41] Aye
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3] Aye
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2] Aye
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2] Aye
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16] Nay
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7] Aye
Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18] Aye
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3] Aye
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9] Aye
Rep. Ben Luján [D, NM-3] Nay
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0] Nay
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3] Aye
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9] Abstain
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14] Nay
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14] Nay
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16] Aye
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24] Aye
Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10] Aye
Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7] Nay
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2] Aye
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5] Nay
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22] Aye
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4] Aye
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10] Aye
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4] Nay
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4] Nay
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11] Aye
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7] Nay
Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3] Nay
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10] Aye
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Aye
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25] Aye
Rep. David McKinley [R, WV-1] Aye
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5] Aye
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] Aye
Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7] Aye
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6] Nay
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7] Aye
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2] Nay
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10] Aye
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7] Nay
Rep. Bradley Miller [D, NC-13] Nay
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42] Aye
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1] Aye
Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4] Nay
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8] Nay
Rep. Mick Mulvaney [R, SC-5] Nay
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5] Nay
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18] Aye
Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9] Abstain
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8] Nay
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38] Nay
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2] Nay
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19] Aye
Rep. Kristi Noem [R, SD-0] Aye
Rep. Richard Nugent [R, FL-5] Aye
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21] Aye
Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1] Aye
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22] Aye
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1] Nay
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] Aye
Rep. Steven Palazzo [R, MS-4] Aye
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6] Nay
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8] Aye
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4] Aye
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Abstain
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3] Aye
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10] Nay
Rep. Steven Pearce [R, NM-2] Aye
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] Aye
Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6] Nay
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7] Aye
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] Nay
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Aye
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6] Aye
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1] Nay
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16] Abstain
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19] Aye
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2] Aye
Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2] Nay
Rep. Mike Pompeo [R, KS-4] Aye
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15] Nay
Rep. David Price [D, NC-4] Nay
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6] Aye
Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3] Aye
Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5] Nay
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3] Aye
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15] Nay
Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29] Aye
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0] Aye
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] Aye
Rep. Jim Renacci [R, OH-16] Aye
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16] Aye
Rep. Reid Ribble [R, WI-8] Nay
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37] Aye
Rep. Cedric Richmond [D, LA-2] Nay
Rep. Scott Rigell [R, VA-2] Aye
Rep. David Rivera [R, FL-25] Aye
Rep. Martha Roby [R, AL-2] Aye
Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1] Nay
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8] Aye
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5] Aye
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3] Aye
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46] Nay
Rep. Todd Rokita [R, IN-4] Nay
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16] Aye
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6] Aye
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18] Aye
Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12] Aye
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4] Aye
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9] Aye
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34] Nay
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40] Nay
Rep. Jon Runyan [R, NJ-3] Aye
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2] Aye
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1] Nay
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17] Nay
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1] Aye
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47] Abstain
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39] Aye
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3] Nay
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1] Aye
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9] Nay
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29] Aye
Rep. Robert Schilling [R, IL-17] Aye
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2] Aye
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18] Aye
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] Aye
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13] Aye
Rep. David Schweikert [R, AZ-5] Nay
Rep. Tim Scott [R, SC-1] Aye
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13] Aye
Rep. Robert Scott [D, VA-3] Nay
Rep. Austin Scott [R, GA-8] Aye
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5] Aye
Rep. José Serrano [D, NY-16] Nay
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32] Aye
Rep. Terri Sewell [D, AL-7] Aye
Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27] Aye
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19] Aye
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11] Aye
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9] Aye
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2] Nay
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13] Aye
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28] Nay
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] Aye
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3] Aye
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9] Aye
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21] Aye
Rep. Steve Southerland [R, FL-2] Aye
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12] Nay
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13] Nay
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6] Aye
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15] Aye
Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3] Nay
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1] Aye
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13] Aye
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2] Aye
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2] Nay
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5] Aye
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] Nay
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13] Aye
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12] Aye
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6] Nay
Rep. Scott Tipton [R, CO-3] Nay
Rep. Paul Tonko [D, NY-21] Nay
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10] Nay
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5] Aye
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9] Aye
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3] Aye
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6] Aye
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8] Nay
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D, NY-12] Nay
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1] Aye
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7] Nay
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2] Aye
Rep. Joe Walsh [R, IL-8] Nay
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1] Aye
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20] Aye
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35] Nay
Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12] Nay
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30] Aye
Rep. Daniel Webster [R, FL-8] Aye
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0] Nay
Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22] Aye
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3] Aye
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1] Aye
Rep. Frederica Wilson [D, FL-17] Aye
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2] Aye
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1] Aye
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10] Aye
Rep. Steve Womack [R, AR-3] Aye
Rep. Rob Woodall [R, GA-7] Nay
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6] Nay
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3] Nay
Rep. Kevin Yoder [R, KS-3] Aye
Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Abstain
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0] Aye
Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9]
MY LETTER TO MY REPS;

I am writing you to express my dismay at your vote concerning The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012.  Your main purpose in Congress, as stated by your Oath of Office was to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of this nation.  Your AYE vote on this Bill is blatantly just the exact opposite.  While the poorly crafted language is seemingly aimed at persons inside the United States who are aiding identified terrorist organizations, the language is purposely vague so that it could be interpreted in very broad terms and conditions which can be “cherry picked” and used against the citizenry in most draconian ways.  This Bill effectively tears up the intent of The Bill of Rights as written by our Founding Fathers.  You know this and you still voted in favor of passage of this Constitution crushing legislation.  In my opinion, you are unfit to serve because you willingly violated your oath of office and violated the rights of the citizens of Washington State.  I will not in any way shape or form, support you in your upcoming election.  In fact I think you should be recalled immediately.  I anticipate that your response to this letter will include your rational for this betrayal to your oath and to the citizens you were supposed to represent.  In that light, it will be shallow and not acceptable as usual.

CLICK THE PIC FOR THE VIDEO

REPLY FROM SENATOR PATTY MURRAY:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding military detention.  It is good to hear from you.  As you know, in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration devised a new detention system outside of established legal structures of the U.S. criminal justice system and military courts-martial. Through legislation and a series of high-profile Supreme Court rulings, both Congress and the federal judiciary took action to clarify and limit parts of the Bush administration’s detention programs.  Although President Obama has taken some important steps toward the fair and humane treatment of detainees, I believe much more work has yet to be done. I continue to support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the ability of the Administration to try terror suspects in the U.S. federal court system.  The federal courts are well-equipped to handle these complex and difficult cases—since 2006, federal courts have successfully tried over 300 terrorism suspects while military commissions have tried only three.  I strongly support giving our military and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our nation and our service members. I understand some evidence against detainees may be too sensitive to national security to be presented in civilian court or may be tainted due to harsh interrogation techniques.  Right now, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General can decide whether to use a military tribunal or a federal court.  I believe the Obama administration should continue to have the flexibility to decide on a case-by-case basis, and I opposed Republican amendments during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act that would strip the President of this authority.

Please be assured that I will keep your views on this important topic in mind during the 112th Congress. If you would like to know more about my work in the United States Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates/. Thank you again for contacting me and please keep in touch.
Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator

(my comment; You see, she does not care about the Bill of Rights)

UPDATED 121911

Lawmaker obtains commitment to revisit detainee language

UPDATED 022112 REPLY FROM CONGRESSWOMAN JAIME HERRARA BEUTLER

February 14, 2012

Thank you for contacting me about Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  It is an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washington, and it is important for me to hear from folks in our region.

I certainly understand your concerns about Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA and how these sections impact our civil liberties and Constitutional rights.  I am a firm believer that your federal representative should take a proactive role in preserving your Constitutional rights.

I have not and will not support any legislation that would limit your Constitutional rights or allow American citizens to be detained under military authority and held without due process.  Please let me share with you why I believe the NDAA takes the proper steps to preserve your Constitutional rights and provide the President and our military with the tools they need to combat terrorism.

The NDAA reaffirms that the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)” against al Qaeda and the Taliban.  The AUMF was authorized following the September 11th terrorist attacks and had not been updated since it was originally sanctioned in 2001.  It is important to provide the President and our military with the resources they need to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban, and this bill accomplishes this goal by reaffirming current laws and without expanding presidential authority.

People had very valid and legitimate concerns about Section 1021 of the NDAA as it relates to the use of force.  Before voting for the NDAA I checked to make sure this legislation will not take away from or infringe upon your Constitutional rights.  The use of force does not apply to U.S. Citizens, in fact Section 1021, Subsection E which explicitly exempts U.S. citizens reads: (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Section 1022 of the NDAA clarifies procedures for how non-U.S. citizens linked to al Qaeda or the Taliban are to be detained.  Evidence must be presented that demonstrates a foreign national’s link to al Qaeda or the Taliban in order for the detainment to be legal. This section clarifies that terrorists apprehended by law enforcement agencies must be held under military custody.  However, Section 1022, Subsection B explicitly exempts U.S. citizens and legal residents.  It reads:(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT       ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. 

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Our country continues to be under the very real threat of terrorism, and it is important to make sure our military is proper equipped to protect our citizens.  It is equally important for us to take steps to preserve and uphold our Constitutional rights.  The NDAA accomplish both of these goals.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite you to visit my website at www.HerrreraBeutler.house.gov for additional information or to sign up to be kept up to date on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.

 
Sincerely,

Jaime Herrera Beutler
Member of Congress

Leave a comment

(UPDATED 120111/120811) S.1867 WILL KILL DEMOCRACY AND AMERICA AS WE KNEW IT……..

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

I am asking all voting Americans to contact your Senators and demand that they not vote in favor of this legislation, “S.1867 – Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012”.  As much as I despise  the ACLU, they are right on this issue and we must not stand for this latest assault on the American Public.  You take the DHS publication on Extremism, and couple it with this legislation and  you will see that the forces inside the Federal Government that want to put us all in jail are still at work and is alive and well.  This could be the final shot across our bow that seals our fate.  If this language is left in this legislation and passes both the House and Senate and is signed into law, (which I have no doubt the current occupier of the WH will do) the great experiment called Democracy, that our Founding Fathers established, will be dead.  This is not an exaggeration or doom and gloom stuff.  If you don’t think so, you’re simply ignorant or not paying attention.  In either case, we’re all in trouble.    Click here and here for the details.

There is another issue with this legislation because it also covers the Tri-Care medical program that military retirees use.  It states;

SEC. 701. ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN ENROLLMENT FEES IN TRICARE PRIME.

(a) In General- Section 1097a of title 10, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection (c):

`(c) Cost-of-living Adjustment in Enrollment Fee- (1) Whenever after September 30, 2012, the Secretary of Defense increases the retired pay of members and former members of the armed forces pursuant to section 1401a of this title, the Secretary shall increase the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime by an amount equal to the percentage of such fee payable on the day before the date of the increase of such fee that is equal to the percentage increase in such retired pay. In determining the amount of the increase in such retired pay for purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall use the amount computed pursuant to section 1401a(b)(2) of this title. The increase in such fee shall be effective as of January 1 following the date of the increase in such retired pay.

`(2) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime whenever increased pursuant to this subsection.’.

So what it saying is, if retirees get a COLA increase in their retirement checks,they will use Tri-Care to get it back…… This is the kind of back door, back stabbing legislation we Vets and Americans are sick of.  Those in congress who push this type of legislation must be voted out of office as we reform our REPRESENTATIVE form of government.

MY LETTER TO MY REPS ON THIS:

I am writing as your constituent in the 3rd Congressional district of Washington. I oppose S.1867 – Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and am tracking it using OpenCongress.org, the free public resource website for government transparency and accountability. This legislation is a direct assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and if you vote in favor of this Bill in its present form, you will be in violation of your oath of office and that will not go unnoticed. As Benjamin Franklin said on Feb 17th, 1775, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This struggle we find ourselves in now is not to be used as justification to tear our democracy asunder. We citizens are relying on you to protect our inviolate foundational tenets and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. We demand you do so or you will most definitely find yourself voted out of office come your next election cycle. As this letter is being sent to all three of my Representatives in Congress, this legislation will not go before the House unless the Senate gives it an up vote. If it is passed in the Senate and goes to the House, my Representative in the House will be held to the same standard as my Senators. Our Democracy is in danger, do the right thing and vote no on this democracy killing legislation.

REPLY FROM CANTWELL:  (sort of..)

Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) introduced the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 on May 5, 2011.  This legislation was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee by a vote of 26-0 on November 15, 2011.  The National Defense Authorization Act is enacted each fiscal year to specify the budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense.  The National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 includes numerous provisions that relate to the treatment of terrorism detainees.  One such provision requires that any detainee caught on U.S. soil must be remanded to the U.S. military for custody.  This provision is strongly opposed by the White House and the Department of Defense; both entities have stated that it will limit current options available to our counter-terrorism officials. However, the legislation also allows the Administration to waive the mandatory custody requirement.  The bill also provides for an exemption for any mandatory custody transfer that would interfere with ongoing civilian law enforcement surveillance or interrogation efforts.  Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts should I have the opportunity to vote on these or similar provisions. I am profoundly grateful for the service of our brave men and women in the armed services and for the sacrifices they have made to defend and preserve our great nation.  As such, we have an important responsibility to ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to successfully complete their mission and return home safe.  Please be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues on behalf of the many soldiers in the state of Washington.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter.  You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents.  If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

My Comment;

NOTICE HOW SHE DOES NOT TOUCH ON MY CONCERNS?  IS SHE RESPONSIVE TO OUR CONCERNS?  I SAY NO!

SENATE SAYS NO TO UDALL AMENDMENT that would have taken the worst out of this Bill.

UPDATED 120111

Vote on 1 Dec 11

 


 

UPDATED 120811

SENATOR CANTWELL RESPONSE

Leave a comment

LEON PANETTA SAYS BENEFITS FOR MILITARY RETIREES MAY BE CUT AND IS “ON THE TABLE”

IS LEON PANETTA A TRAITOR TO THE VERY MILITARY MEMBERS HE COMMANDS INCLUDING THE RETIREES?

My letter to Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler on this subject:

In a recent article I read on “The New York Times” website, it recounted recent statements being made by Leon Panetta that a reduction of retired military benefits will be on the table and out of pocket increases will be incurred by us retired military people.   I have written you on several occasions expressing my concerns regarding Tri-Care and the possibility that the budget will be balanced on the backs of the Vets and Military Retirees.  You have replied to my concerns stating that you will resist all efforts to further erode the retirement benefits that I worked over 20 years to get, that, by the way, was promised to me all those years ago.  In the years since my initial enlistment, which was in 1975, I have bared witness to the steady reneging on the Governments part, of the retirement benefits of those serving this nation.  You as a Representative of Congress, and as a body, must never lose sight of the fact that each and every man and woman who served and are currently serving in the military are volunteers.  They/we have volunteered to defend this great land, with our lives if need be, in order to preserve the American way of life.  That act alone, is worthy of honor AND backing and support of the very government we defend.  It is my sincere prediction that if Congress once again, turns its back on the military members and further erodes the promised benefits of those who serve, you will see a steady, unrelenting decline in the numbers of people who will be willing to “volunteer” and stand up for this once great nation.  I dare say, Congress is not contemplating a reduction in their retirement benefits, are they?  Are you?  You have to serve a much shorter time to get your benefits that I had to, yet you are fully vested after 5 years and will retirement with full benefits.  I am unable to find any information regarding the medical benefits that are afforded you and others in Congress. I am troubled by that fact.  The lack of information on this subject is troubling at best.  Could you enlighten me and explain/outline the medical benefits afforded both serving and retired members of Congress?  My readers have the right to know what we tax payers are paying for, especially when it involves the pay and benefits of those we choose to send to Washington DC.  Bluntly stated, I will accept a reduction in benefits when Congress does the same.

In closing, I continue to urge both you and the rest of the Conservatives in Congress to strongly resist any further changes in the military benefits that would either lessen services or cause an increase in “out-of-pocket” expenses of the retirees or any other class of military vets.  It is immoral for a nation to punish the very people whom you rely on to protect this great country.  When I signed my contract with The United States of America, way back in 1975, the government promised me certain things if I kept up my end of the bargain.  Well, I did, will the USA do the same and keep its end of the bargain?  So far, it hasn’t.  It is up to you to restore what is rightfully ours.  The next election cycle is just around the corner for you and your re-election is not guaranteed.  I sent you to DC for a reason and that was to stand up for me and be my voice along with the other thousands of Vets who rely on your support.  I am expecting you and your like-minded Conservatives to do just that.  Do not “cave” into those who wish to further erode the militaries pay and benefits just to make a “deal” and make political points by trying to look like you’re being ‘bi-partisan”.  You are our shoulder to the dike, holding back the tide.  Stay the fight, make those who wish to do us vets harm, blink first.

Letter to Senator Patty Murray:

In a recent article I read on “The New York Times” website, it recounted recent statements being made by Leon Panetta that a reduction of retired military benefits will be on the table and out of pocket increases will be incurred by us retired military people.   I have written you on several occasions expressing my concerns regarding Tri-Care and the possibility that the budget will be balanced on the backs of the Vets and Military Retirees.  You have replied to my concerns using very broad terms and not committing to resisting all efforts to further erode the retirement benefits that I worked over 20 years to get, that, by the way, was promised to me all those years ago.  In the years since my initial enlistment, which was in 1975, I have bared witness to the steady reneging on the Governments part, of the retirement benefits of those serving this nation.  You as a member of Congress, and as a body, must never lose sight of the fact that each and every man and woman who served and are currently serving in the military are volunteers.  They/we have volunteered to defend this great land, with our lives if need be, in order to preserve the American way of life.  That act alone, is worthy of honor AND backing and support of the very government we defend.  It is my sincere prediction that if Congress once again, turns its back on the military members and further erodes the promised benefits of those who serve, you will see a steady, unrelenting decline in the numbers of people who will be willing to “volunteer” and stand up for this once great nation.  I dare say, Congress is not contemplating a reduction in their retirement benefits, are they?  Are you?  You have to serve a much shorter time to get your benefits that I had to, yet you are fully vested after 5 years and will retirement with full benefits.  Bluntly stated, I will accept a reduction in benefits when Congress does the same.  You being on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, the Defense Subcommittee and the “Super Committee, you are in a prime position to preserve the benefits we veterans sacrificed so long for.

In closing, I continue to urge you to strongly resist any further changes in the military benefits that would either lessen services or cause an increase in “out-of-pocket” expenses of the retirees or any other class of military vets.  It is immoral for a nation to punish the very people whom you rely on to protect this great country.  When I signed my contract with The United States of America, way back in 1975, the government promised me certain things if I kept up my end of the bargain.  Well, I did, will the USA do the same and keep its end of the bargain?  So far, it hasn’t.  It is up to you to restore what is rightfully ours.  The next election cycle is coming up in ’16  and your re-election is not guaranteed, especially if you fail the vets.  You were sent to DC for a reason and that was to stand up for me and be my voice along with the other thousands of Vets who rely on your support.  I am expecting you to do just that.  Do not “cave” into those who wish to further erode the militaries pay and benefits just to make a “deal” and make political points by trying to look like you’re being ‘bi-partisan”.  You are our shoulder to the dike, holding back the tide.  Stay the fight, make those who wish to do us vets harm, blink first.  We are watching and we vote.

note: With a few changes, this letter was also sent to Senator Maria Cantwell

Leave a comment

WHITE HOUSE TO SIGN UBER CAFTA INTO LAW TODAY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Click pic for more info.... How safe are these 3rd world country trucks???

As this article goes on to explain, president obama (small case intentional) is signing this in the Oval Office so he can control the press, ie the pictures that get published.  His reasoning may be that he does not want to appear like he is working with the Republicans on this issue so as to not piss off more of his base.  I am totally disappointed in the legislation because of all the reasons I have mentioned in previous articles on this subject. Here and Here.  The GOP screwed the pooch on this one.   I am very confident that I am right on this issue and it will be proven out in the next few years as more US industry moves into the “CAFTA Zone” of influence.  All this is going to do is further erode US wages, put more inferior products in the market  and further add to the retreat of the American standard of living.  The crafters and supporter of CAFTA say it is going to provide America with the needed jobs to get this economy back on its feet, I beg to differ.  History says the opposite is true.  Third World countries cannot afford the products we would build here.  Our wages and overhead are not conducive to making the products these poor countries can afford because if made with proper US wages, the products would be priced out of their price range and if wages were drastically reduced, the wages paid to the US workers would not be enough to live on at all.  Not even close.   So either way, it’s not going to work.  Also, as a side note along these same lines, today, Oct 21, 2011, the US started allowing Mexican trucks to cross the border and deliver their loads directly to their destinations.  This effectively takes jobs away from the US trucking industry.  How does this help American jobs ?  This is a result of  NAFTA.  Whats next, trucks from Central America?……..yea, I’ll bet so….  This is a step towards multi-nationalism I am not comfortable with at all….  It’s just another step towards the marginalization of Americanism and it will lead to more…….

Leave a comment

(UPDATED 111711 – 010612) H.R.822 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

HOW CAN THIS TAKE A HARD LEFT ON US?

As I read this Bill, on the surface it seems fairly benign and well intentioned, but as I apply a few brain cells of thought to this, I find a few problems with it.  First off, and the most obvious problem, is the very real possibility that this legislation could be “modified” in the future in such a way that it actually becomes detrimental to our rights under the 2nd Amendment.  If you read the text, the 2nd is specifically and conspicuously mentioned, however, this means nothing as this legislation, as with all others is subject to change and there is no reason why we should believe that it wouldn’t be changed in ways that it wasn’t originally planned.  Everyone should know as well as I do that once the Feds get their grubby hands on ANYTHING, it gets screwed up in ways that always flow in the direction of the prevailing political winds.  This legislation is no different.  Realistically, it comes down to a level of trust, and right now I have ZERO faith and trust in the Federal Government, in its current state.  This could prove to be the “Trojan Horse” the anti-gunners are looking for.  Secondly, there will be an issue of standards of training because each state has established their own level of competency each applicant must meet in order to be issued a CWP (Concealed Weapon Permit).  For example, say one state does not require anything but a clean background in order to be issued a CWP, but another state requires a minimum level of training in order to be permitted to carry concealed in their state.  How is the Federal Government going to reconcile this disparity?  If I was in a State Legislature that requires a higher level of competency, I would not be happy about having a bunch of people walking around packing that may or may not be competent to carry.  As a citizen of that state I would be concerned for the same reasons.  Does this mean that this function would no longer be the responsibility of the states?  What about states rights?  This Legislation walks all over that issue.  And thirdly, how would this law, if enacted play into the UN Inter-American Arms Treaty being negotiated right now by the Secretary of State in the Obama Administration? With the Feds in control of these permits, there could be provisions in this treaty, if ratified, that would have serious effects and require the government to enact draconian conditions on the issuance of these permits, thusly putting foreign governments in control of our 2nd Amendment.  In conclusion, I am opposed to this legislation for the reasons outlined above.

MY NOTE:

I sent this as a letter to my Reps on this subject.  So should you.

RESPONSE FROM MARIA CANTWELL 102111

Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding concealed carry laws and reciprocity agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Under existing law, the authority to issue concealed carry permits falls within state jurisdiction. Washington State is a “shall-issue” state meaning that residents who meet the necessary criteria (e.g. at least 21 years of age) shall be issued a concealed carry permit upon request. Currently, each state decides which out-of-state permits they will honor. This is done via reciprocity and recognition agreements. In Washington State, the concealed carry permits of other states receive reciprocity only if the licensing state: (1) does not issue permits to individuals under the age of 21, and (2) requires mandatory fingerprint-based background checks of criminal and mental health history (RCW 9.41.073).
As you know, Senator John Thune (SD) introduced Senate Amendment 1618 (S.Amdt. 1618) to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 1390) on July 17, 2009. This amendment would have preempted reciprocity agreements, including those of Washington State. In effect, it would have created a nationalized concealed carry permit set at the lowest issuance standard. Washington State would be forced to grant reciprocity to any permit holder, even if the issuing state did not meet the basic safety and suitability requirements of Washington State law. I opposed this amendment which was not agreed to by the Senate on July 20, 2009.
As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws. Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

MY NOTE:  She did not address my concerns adequately and did not mention the UN Inter-American Arms Treaty

UPDATED

010612   (OUT OF ORDER)

Reply from Maria Cantwell

Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding concealed carry laws and reciprocity agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Under existing law, the authority to issue concealed carry permits for firearms falls within state jurisdiction. Washington State is a
“shall-issue” state, meaning that residents who meet the necessary criteria (e.g. at least 21 years of age) shall be issued a concealed
carry permit upon request. Currently, each state decides what out-of-state permits it will honor. This is done via reciprocity and
recognition agreements. In Washington State, the concealed carry permits of other states receive reciprocity only if the licensing state: (1) does not issue permits to individuals under the age of 21, and (2) requires mandatory fingerprint-based background checks of criminal and mental health history (RCW 9.41.073).  On February 18, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (H.R. 822) in the U.S. House of Representatives. This proposed legislation was passed out of the House of Representatives and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it is awaiting further review. If enacted, this legislation would amend the federal criminal code to authorize a person with a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with that state’s restrictions. The legislation would not apply to those prohibited from possessing, transporting, or receiving firearms under federal law.  As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing
to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

 

UPDATED 102611

HR 822 PASSES COMMITTEE HURDLE

EMAIL FROM NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS 111711:

I was right to be concerned.Not only was H.R. 822 — the Trojan horse gun control bill — passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.

Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here:http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).

The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.

You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.

One of my biggest concerns about this bill — the lists of gun owners a permit process creates — should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.

It’s bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, they’ll do it — all the in the name of “implementing H.R. 822.”

The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.

What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, they’ve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:

“It’s remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states’ concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.

Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights… I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822.”

Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.

Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.

For Freedom,

  
   Dudley Brown
   Executive Director



The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O. 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org/

You can read our privacy policy here.

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.


To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, pleaseforward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

1 Comment

(UPDATED 101211) HOUSE COMMITTEE GIVES THE NOD TO 3 FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND YOU HEAR WILL BE MORE JOBS HEADING SOUTH..... CLICK THE PIC FOR THE STORY

I am highlighting this because I remember when the last free trade agreement was made and I remember what happened………If memory serves, when NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) was signed, everyone in DC said that it would prove to be a boom to business here in the USA.  Well, it really didn’t work out that way.  Seems to me, it worked out great for everyone EXCEPT the USA.  The next thing we saw was the tail lights of our manufacturing base heading south of the border, and now they want to extend that into Central America in what is called CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement).  It is my opinion that this is just more bad decision making from DC when we cannot stand another hit like we took with NAFTA.  If this happens, I just don’t see how corporations are going to be lulled back into the States to rebuild the jobs lost when they left to begin with.  Now they will build factories all the way down through Central America.  How does that help the US Workers?  It seems by this article that they are more concerned about the workers in Columbia.  Why would that be, other than the obvious?   The logic is supposed to be that we care about the poor workers of the indigenous companies in those countries covered by CAFTA, but could it be that when US companies move their operations down there, they don’t want the bad PR associated with worker mistreatment?  Gee, could be…..  These agreements in my opinion should not happen.  I predict we will suffer for it, not benefit………

UPDATE 101211

This plan has passed the House.  It is expected to pass the Senate easily.  I predict  more US industry heading south….Say goodbye to more jobs!

Leave a comment

S. 978 TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL PENALTY PROVISION FOR CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

S.978

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 12, 2011

 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


 

A BILL

To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT.

(a) Amendments to Section 2319 of Title 18- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in subsection (b)–

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

‘(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if–

‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and

‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or

‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;’; and

(2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

‘(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’, and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17;’.

(b) Amendment to Section 506 of Title 17- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’ the first place it appears; and

(2) in paragraph (3)–

(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘unauthorized distribution’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’.

——————————————————————-

MY OPINION;

This is an attempt from the Left to shut down the conservative narrative on the liberal/socialist/Marxist agenda.  Plain and simple

Leave a comment

APCO, SENATE DEMS PUSH FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BILL – For our own safety…

Is this where we are headed? Or are we already there?

As you read this story, you might think that it is a good idea that the police and fire departments get organized under an all encompassing communications system.  Hey, with all the terrorist threats that we are facing, that can’t be a bad thing can it?  We need the police to act in a unified, coordinated manner, as with the fire fighters, right?.  I mean, we need them to be “the tip of the spear” when emergencies arise across the country, right?   Well, if you look at it from the perspective of  “for real” acts of terrorism.  However, what does the government categorize as terrorism or extremist groups?  What about how this would enable the government/s across the nation to put down the citizenry exercising their constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights?  This proposal being put forth by the Dems, is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to subvert and control the population in the guise of public safety.  Do you really think, after all we have seen coming from the Left, that this is an honest, malevolent attempt to protect the public?  I think not………Any attempt by the Feds or State governments to coordinate the police, is an attack on the Bill of Rights.  Don’t think so?  Think I am just an alarmist?  Well, I know some facts you all don’t, …..but I hope you all are right…..Think about it……

Leave a comment

(UPDATED 031511) IS THE GOVERNMENT (GOP) GOING TO TURN ITS BACK ON THE VETS AND SCREW UP THIER TRI-CARE MEDICAL BENEFITS?

THE POLITICIANS SHOULD NOT BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE VETS....Click the pic for the story

If they do, they do s0 at their political peril.   We veterans sacrifices for 20 years plus, in many instances putting ourselves in harm’s way in order to protect this nation, and now the politicians are threatening our retirement benefits.  They are targeting the “working age retirees” on this one.  “Working age retirees”?!?!?  What the hell, you have to work because you cannot live solely on a single enlisted retirement and expect to be an any way comfortable.  This is unconscionable and cannot be allowed to pass.  I urge ALL retirees and future retirees to contact their Reps and tell them to resist all efforts to  do this. I did…  Read the comments on this stories site.  It pretty much says it all…

My Letter:

The enemies of the veterans are at it again, trying to renege on the benefits promised to us upon 20+ years of faithful service.  If the GOP or Democrats allows this to happen, the GOP and Democrats will feel the wrath of the veterans at the polls.  I urge you to resist all efforts to erode our benefits.  This latest scheme targets the “working age” retirees.  I am sick and tired of my government “Targeting” me, through taxes and now this.  My wife and I childless, not by choice and we get raped every year in taxes, and now the possibility of our health insurance being screwed up too.  My health is failing and I am none too happy about this situation.  The term “working age retirees” is a joke.  You cannot live on Military retirement only.  You have to work if you want to live any decent existence.  I don’t need the government further eroding my standard of living especially since I/we worked over 20 years for my military retirement benefits.  When the nation forgets about the vets, the nation will suffer for it.

UPDATED 031511

Vets march on Capitol Hill

2 Comments

(UPDATED 022811-021611) BREAKING: Committee rejects plan to fully defund ObamaCare‏

ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THESE COWARDLY, DOUBLE-DEALING, MEALLY-MOUTHED PEOPLE TO DOUBLE CROSS US? I THINK NOT!!

HOT HOT HOT HOT HOT HOT

To say I am utterly appalled is an utter understatement!  Sorry about being redundant here but this is outrageous!  We Conservatives sent these people to DC to do just that!  DE-FUND OBAMACARE ! In fact, that was their platform.  “Send me to Washington so we can de-fund the health-care bill and stop it cold in its tracks”.  We did not send these people there just to go back to “business as Usual”.   I am going to write my Congressman/woman ASAP and tell her in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable.  These yahoos need to understand that if they do not do this, we will throw them out on their ear their next election cycle and the GOP will be marginalized just like the Dems.  A third party will rise and the GOP WILL be left out in the cold.  We cannot allow these cowards to double cross us voters.  SPEAK UP AND BE HEARD NOW!!!!!

TUESDAY MIDDAY—
BREAKING NEWS ON OBAMACARE REPEAL:

The House Rules Committee has rejected Rep. Steve King’s
proposal to FULLY DEFUND ObamaCare, failing to agree to
“protect” King’s amendment when it comes to the House floor.

Bottom line — Republicans on the Rules Committee refused
to play hardball to fully defund ObamaCare. By doing so,
they are allowing Pelosi’s “mandatory” self-funding
provisions — which many say are unconscionable if not
unconstitutional — to stand! This will force this
Congress to approve most of the funding for ObamaCare.

FoxNews says King’s provision would “cripple all government
operations devoted to executing the health law.”

DEBATE BEGINS THIS AFTERNOON.

IT IS URGENT THAT CITIZENS EXPRESS THEIR VOICE ON THE ISSUE
OF WHETHER OBAMACARE SHOULD BE FULLY DEFUNDED RIGHT NOW.
GO HERE TO SEND YOUR FAXES:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=37456&CID=146&RID=23047417

Grassfire Nation

+ + + + +
GO HERE TO SEND YOUR FAXES:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=37457&CID=146&RID=23047417

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
(Note: Please do not “reply” directly to this e-mail message.
This e-mail address is not designed to receive your personal
messages. To contact Grassfire Nation with comments, questions
or to change your status, see link at the end.)

+ + + + +
Grassfire Nation, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., is a
million-strong network of grassroots conservatives that is
dedicated to equipping you with the tools that give you a real
impact on the key issues of our day.
+ + Comments? Questions?

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=37458&CID=146&RID=23047417

MY LETTER TO HERERRA:

I just received this in my in-box:

TUESDAY MIDDAY—
BREAKING NEWS ON OBAMACARE REPEAL:

The House Rules Committee has rejected Rep. Steve King’s
proposal to FULLY DEFUND ObamaCare, failing to agree to
“protect” King’s amendment when it comes to the House floor.
Bottom line — Republicans on the Rules Committee refused
to play hardball to fully defund ObamaCare. By doing so,
they are allowing Pelosi’s “mandatory” self-funding
provisions — which many say are unconscionable if not
unconstitutional — to stand! This will force this
Congress to approve most of the funding for ObamaCare.
FoxNews says King’s provision would “cripple all government
operations devoted to executing the health law.”
DEBATE BEGINS THIS AFTERNOON.”

If this is true, this is totally unacceptable.  We Conservatives did not send you and your fellow Freshmen to DC so “business as usual” could continue.  The key people who may be shrinking away from de-funding, need to understand that failure to de-fund OBAMACARE will result in their seat going to someone more worthy come their next election cycle.  We are not going to tolerate anymore Representatives who say one thing, then do another.  I am sure, that if in fact this reporting is accurate, the GOP will suffer the same fate as the Democrat Party come the next election cycles.  If the GOP does not do what we sent you there to do, it will be marginalized, with a viable 3rd Party coming to the forefront.  I urge you to press for de-funding ObamaCare in toto and not support any effort to not do so.
Unlike your predecessor, I expect you to listen to us Conservatives here in Dist#3 in SW Washington.  I hardly never got any type of replies back from him.  On the other hand, I require, and would hope, that you would feel compelled to correspond with your Constituents.

IRS NEEDS MONEY!!

UPDATE 021611

Urgent Action Required!

WEDNESDAY P.M.—
BREAKING NEWS ON OBAMACARE DEFUND VOTE:

Our contacts on Capitol Hill have confirmed to us that
Rep. Steve King will bring his amendment to the House
floor to FULLY DEFUND ObamaCare ON THURSDAY or at the
latest Friday.

THE KING AMENDMENT IS THE ONLY OPTION THAT FULLY
DEFUNDS OBAMACARE.

+ + ObamaCare will grow “like a malignant tumor”

Without the King Amendment, Nancy Pelosi’s “mandatory” self-
funding provisions — a total of more than $105 BILLION IN
OBAMACARE SPENDING — “will flow to grow ObamaCare like a
malignant tumor,” according to Rep. King.

IT IS URGENT THAT CITIZENS EXPRESS THEIR VOICE ON THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER OBAMACARE SHOULD BE FULLY DEFUNDED RIGHT
NOW.

ACTION #1 — GO HERE TO SEND YOUR FAXES:

http://www.grassfire.com/1146/offer.asp?ref_id=500062

ACTION #2 — CALL CONGRESS:

Contact Your Rep Here:

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/ttd.html

Erick Erickson of RedState says, “House Republicans are now
hiding behind parliamentary rules…this is just complete and
utter nonsense.”

Let Congress know where you stand.

Grassfire Nation

+ + + + +
GO HERE TO SEND YOUR FAXES:

http://www.grassfire.com/1146/offer.asp?ref_id=500062

UPDATED 022811

Is Obama backtracking, triangulating, or “Seeing the Light”?  Either way, it’s a calculated move….


//

Leave a comment

(UPDATED 012611) SENATE RESOLUTION 10 — A THREAT TO CIVIL LIBERTIES

There’s a big fight brewing in the U.S. Senate…

…. no, wait.  Not brewing.  It’s boiled over.
Senator Harry Reid is pushing for rules to enable gun control in the U.S. Senate.  And unless you act NOW, he just may pass those rules — and enable gun control for decades to come.  Harry Reid is pushing Senate Resolution 10, which does away with the tool that has stopped more gun control in America than anything else: the filibuster in the U.S. Senate.  Tell them both to oppose changing the rules in the Senate, and that you’ll be watching their vote.  You see, our founding fathers put the filibuster in place as a last line of defense against a government run amok.  And it’s the last real hurdle Harry Reid needs to overcome to enact gun control.  The truth is that virtually every gun control scheme ever offered in Congress has had to face the filibuster. And anti-gunners like Sarah Brady have to devise schemes to get around it.
And this time, the gun-haters believe they have a way around the filibuster: just do away with it.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to get rid of the filibuster rule precisely because it has stopped so much liberal, anti-gun legislation.

MY LETTER to Senators Cantwell and Murray:

I am writing you regarding Senate Res.10 that is being brought to the
floor by Senator Reid. I urge you to not vote in favor of this Resolution
as it will have far reaching, detrimental effects on the quality of
legislation emanating from the Senate. If this Res passes, it is my
opinion that this Resolution will be used to the advantage of the GOP when
they regain the majority of the Senate. Plus, this Res. would enable the
Senate to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the
citizenry and would enable further onslaughts on the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights. We here in your district in Washington State will be
watching your vote on this draconian Resolution. We will use that
knowledge at the polls during your next election cycle when we vote.

Sincerely,

UPDATED 012611

Last night the U.S. Senate leaders agreed to adjourn the first legislative day of the 112th Congress, without a vote to change the rules to silence outspoken pro-gun advocates.

This effectively ended the chances for anti-gun Obamacrats to prevent conservative heroes like Senator Tom Coburn and Rand Paul from using all the procedural tools at their disposal to fight for your right to keep and bear arms.

Your actions — calls and e-mails — made the difference. Thank you!

Because of your activism, gun rights advocates in the Senate can still use the filibuster to block anti-gun legislation.

Sources on Capitol Hill tell me that negotiations are still on going regarding “tinkering” with the rules, but the filibuster should remain intact. Rest assured, I will keep you informed of any future attempts to move the goal posts in the U.S. Senate.

While this is a small victory, it is a victory nonetheless.

Thank you for stepping up and making your voice heard.

For liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

1 Comment

DEMOCRATS PLANNING ON BILL THAT WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO VERBALLY THREATEN OR USE SYMBOLS THAT WOULD BE THREATENING TO LAWMAKERS

Excuse me,  I thought it was already illegal to threaten people…  Like Rahm Emanuel said, Never let a good crisis, (or in this case,tragedy) go to waste.  And that is exactly what they are going to do.  The Liberal_Progressive-Fascists are jumping all over this tragedy and use it as a spring-board to push their agenda.  Click the following links for the information;

New Legislation

A little background info

A real patriot in a  time of unimaginable pain and suffering

Re-instate the Fairness Doctrine

LEFT WING LOONS COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK

GERALDO GETS SCHOOLS ON RESPONSIBLE CONCEALED WEAPON CARRY AND USE

1 Comment

RON PAUL WANTS TO AUDIT THE “FED” – WHAT ABOUT AUDITING OUR GOLD RESERVES TOO, INCLUDING FORT KNOX ?

Is the gold still here and Manhattan?

Yea I know, this is conspiracy theory stuff, and you might be right.  But I can’t help but wonder if those gold reserves are still intact since the last real audit about 50 years ago.  In doing a little research, I find that in fact Dr. Ron Paul is looking into doing an actual audit of the gold reserves.  If he does, I hope he makes the results public so we citizens know if our government has literally sold us down the river.

1 Comment

AMERICA RISING VIDEO AN OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS

1 Comment

HR 5741 – UNIVERSAL NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

 

CLICK THE PIC TO GET HR 5741 - WE WILL BE WATCHING YOU!!!

The thought a new Security Force under the auspices of the Federal Government including DHS, sends a chill down my spine.  In the aftermath of 911, The Department of Homeland Security was born.  Its birth was felt necessary in order to protect the “Homeland” from further terrorist attack.  Along with the formation of DHS, the Patriot Act was formulated and approved through Congress that gave the DHS unparalleled scope and authority.  This Act also expanded the rolls of the State, local, and other federal agencies.  “Fusion Centers” were established in each state, purpose being, an information gathering and dissemination point for that particular states law enforcement agencies where information being down-channeled via the DHS communications systems can get to all appropriate agencies so as to aid in the coordinated response to any perceived “threats” identified by DHS.  I would assume also that any changes to local threat assessments would conversely be up-channeled to DHS from these Centers.

 

In the years since the Patriot Act has been enacted, there has been some rather startling revelations as to how much authority these various law enforcement agencies have been given,  Now let me be perfectly clear here.  I am all in favor of taking whatever action is necessary in order to avert any future terrorist attacks on US soil and bringing those responsible to justice, however, in the spirit of Democracy, and in the interest in preserving the “citizens” rights, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , I believe that the patriot act is in need of some serious revisions and should be revisited. Now notice I said “citizens”.  People who are not US citizens should expect a higher level of scrutiny and a lower threshold of limits on government investigation into their affairs.  However, all measures should be taken to ensure that these people are not mistreated, or unduly abused.  The Patriot Act needs to be revised, paying particular attention to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now with all this being said, do we really want a new civilian security force created with undoubtedly, power and authority we really do not know the true scope and authority of?    Not to mention the fact that service would be compulsory for all persons ages 18-42 years, how is the formation of an apparent new “Brown-Shirt” security force, going to be good for our Republic and Democracy?  Simply put, it’s not.. Some people may believe that this “draft” or plan for “conscription” or “Draft” is unconstitutional, but I am not aware of anything in the Constitution that prohibits conscription, in fact Section 8 directly addresses the authority of Congress “to raise and support armies” (sic) and Section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act will be amended to include females and other such “tweaks” to the Act will be done as indicated in the HR to make sure all the bases are covered.  So I am sure that Congress has the needed authority to form whatever army it needs to provide for the common defense of this country.  However, Section 8 also stated that funding may not exceed 2 years so the term of service would be for a 2 year period for each individual man and women conscripted/drafted into service.

In my opinion, this Security Force will act as another repressive arm of the socialist agenda, all under the guise of National Security and service.  Hmmm, I wonder if this force could be used by the EPA to rout out all us evil polluters and bring them/us all to justice? (All in the name of saving good ol’ mother earth, don’t cha know…)

One last thought.  If the draft is re-instated, why would the DOD keep the current pay rates for the various ranks?   When the draft was in place last time, the pay in the military was not very good.  The only reason pay was increased to its current rate was simply because of the need for people to “volunteer” for service.  Nobody is going to volunteer to take a job with a less than adequate pay rate.  But, if the volunteer military is done away with, there is no longer any need for the higher pay rates AND the DOD’s budget will be lessened accordingly.  I am sure that this is part of the overall equation on this issue.  Reduce the federal budget…..  The military will take a huge, and in my opinion, detrimental hit because of this Act.  Overall, HR 5741 is a bad idea on many levels and should not come to fruition.  It smacks of socialistic overtones and would be too prone to abuse.  In a word…..NO, Plus this is a Democrat sponsored Bill, by our old buddy Rep.Charlie Rangle (D-NY), who by the way is under investigation for ethics violations……

Leave a comment

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS BOUGHT, ER, AH,… PAID FOR FAVORABLE MEDIA ON ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING……DUUUHHHH!!!!! CAN WE SAY THAT THE MEDIA IS CORRUPT?!?!? YEA!!!

CLICK THE PIC FOR THE STORY OF CORRUPTION IN THE MEDIA

Well, well, well…..Does this really surprise anybody anymore?  It is just another piece of this whole corrupt puzzle surrounding the whole “ClimateGate” scandal.  Click the pic for the story.

Leave a comment

VOTING ROLL CALL OF THOSE WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF TABLING A MOTION TO STOP ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM GETTING SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY – WA. SENATORS MURRAY MAND CANTWELL VOTED TO ALLOW SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS

THESE TWO BELIEVE IT IS OK TO GIVE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS

XML U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Ensign Amdt. No. 3985 )
Vote Number: 130 Vote Date: May 18, 2006, 12:50 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3985 to S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006)
Statement of Purpose: To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
Vote Counts: YEAs 50
NAYs 49
YEAs —50
Akaka (D-HI) Graham (R-SC) McCain (R-AZ)
Baucus (D-MT) Hagel (R-NE) Menendez (D-NJ)
Bayh (D-IN) Harkin (D-IA) Mikulski (D-MD)
Biden (D-DE) Inouye (D-HI) Murray (D-WA)
Bingaman (D-NM) Jeffords (I-VT) Obama (D-IL)
Boxer (D-CA) Johnson (D-SD) Pryor (D-AR)
Brownback (R-KS) Kennedy (D-MA) Reed (D-RI)
Cantwell (D-WA) Kerry (D-MA) Reid (D-NV)
Carper (D-DE) Kohl (D-WI) Salazar (D-CO)
Chafee (R-RI) Landrieu (D-LA) Sarbanes (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Schumer (D-NY)
DeWine (R-OH) Leahy (D-VT) Specter (R-PA)
Dodd (D-CT) Levin (D-MI) Stabenow (D-MI)
Dorgan (D-ND) Lieberman (D-CT) Stevens (R-AK)
Durbin (D-IL) Lincoln (D-AR) Voinovich (R-OH)
Feingold (D-WI) Lugar (R-IN) Wyden (D-OR)
Feinstein (D-CA) Martinez (R-FL)
NAYs —49
Alexander (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) Murkowski (R-AK)
Allard (R-CO) Dayton (D-MN) Nelson (D-FL)
Allen (R-VA) DeMint (R-SC) Nelson (D-NE)
Bennett (R-UT) Dole (R-NC) Roberts (R-KS)
Bond (R-MO) Domenici (R-NM) Santorum (R-PA)
Bunning (R-KY) Ensign (R-NV) Sessions (R-AL)
Burns (R-MT) Enzi (R-WY) Shelby (R-AL)
Burr (R-NC) Frist (R-TN) Smith (R-OR)
Byrd (D-WV) Grassley (R-IA) Snowe (R-ME)
Chambliss (R-GA) Gregg (R-NH) Sununu (R-NH)
Coburn (R-OK) Hatch (R-UT) Talent (R-MO)
Cochran (R-MS) Hutchison (R-TX) Thomas (R-WY)
Coleman (R-MN) Inhofe (R-OK) Thune (R-SD)
Collins (R-ME) Isakson (R-GA) Vitter (R-LA)
Conrad (D-ND) Kyl (R-AZ) Warner (R-VA)
Cornyn (R-TX) Lott (R-MS)
Craig (R-ID) McConnell (R-KY)
Not Voting – 1
Rockefeller (D-WV)

Leave a comment

(UPDATED 050911) GE FAILS TO KEEP U.S. JOBS IN AMERICA WHILE PUSHING ITS “HEALTHYMAGINATION” AGENDA – THE REALITIES OF THE CFLs AND THE GREEN AGENDA See update

THE USA SURRENDERS MORE TO THE CHICOMMS

Here is one for all you out there who believe the GE “Healthymagination” hype being pushed at us via their copious TV ads as of late is a good thing….  If you are familiar with this web site, you will recall the posts detailing the GE/Liberal-Socialist Democrat unholy alliance they set up in order to push their socialized healthcare agenda on us.

As I was reading this story that describes the closing of the last incandescent light bulb factory in the USA, I was disheartened to learn that after this plant closes, the venerable ol’ light bulb will literally burn out, fading forever from the American landscape as we knew it.  This timeless link to Thomas A. Edison will be nothing more than a fond, warmly lit memory, now thanks to the “Greenies” and their schemes.  Because of their agenda, (getting the government to sign off on a ban incandescent bulbs by 2014) we as a society and a nation, are being forced to use the more “eco-friendly” methods of illuminating our life, such as using “Compact Fluorescent Lights” more commonly known as CFL’s.  These bulbs are touted as typically using less electricity and subsequently, producing an equivalent of light output normally associated with a higher wattage incandescent bulb.  It all sounds like a good deal all around right?  We use less electricity, get more light, get more bang for our buck, and life is good, right? Right??……Or is it?

In order to understand my argument, you must first understand how fluorescent lights are made and work.  The principal is pretty straight forward.  You make a glass tube of some sort or shape, fill the tube with a gas that will produce a plasma when electrified, affix electrodes at each end, sealing the ends closed. Apply a DC current and voilà, a fluorescent light.   Well,…. not so fast…..  I left out one very important component; Mercury.  A drop of mercury is added just before the tube is sealed, and its purpose is to enhance and facilitate a much more efficient flow of electrons/current through the gas-filled tube.  As the first charge of current passes through the tube at the end of its production cycle, the drop of mercury vaporizes, filling the tube with mercury vapor.  With all this being said, now that we are all on the same page now, here is the rub.  I remember when these CFL first hit the markets.  Everyone thought that they were kinda cool and would save us a ton of money and hey, life would be good.  Well, shortly there after, the environmentalist groups all stood up and said that the wide spread use of these bulbs would result in mercury being dumped into the landfills and would end up leaching into the ground water.  So the message here was, these bulbs are bad for the environment, don’t use them.  So here we are now, more than a decade down the road, and now the “Greenies” are pushing these CFL so hard, it eventually and purposely, lead to the demise of the incandescent light bulb industry, to which GE is, or should I say “was”, a huge player, AND as it happens, the last remaining US manufacturer of these “antiquated” light bulbs.  So evidently, GE saw no benefit what so ever in saving the industry, and felt no sense of obligation to its employees who occupy the hundreds of jobs that goes along in making these bulbs.  Evidently GE has bought in completely, for reasons, known only to themselves (money), into the “Green” agenda, and apparently, not giving a hoot about its employees.  Kinda brings a new meaning to their motto, “GE, We Bring Good Things To Life” doesn’t it?  GE has without a doubt, failed to do the right thing again by America and develop a US manufacturing base for the CFL industry.  Why would GE just throw in the towel and call it quits?  Could it be that they too want China to have the monopoly on this niche of the lighting industry, or is this just part of the larger government scheme to empower China?  Either or, I find it repugnant that GE or the Feds would turn their back on Americans, favoring a Communist nation over the hard working and at this point, needy, American Work Force.  Granted, this “redistribution of wealth” to China was hatched, I believe during the Clinton era, but, for GE to let this happen to hundreds of their loyal, and I am sure, long time employees, especially in these tough economic times (recession) that we’re now in, is unconscionable and beyond the pale of decency AND patriotism.  I’m sure money, and power, is at the root of all of this.  God knows, they must do everything possible to protect and grow the “bottom line’.  Just look for yourself and see how many “bottom lines” GE has.  My God, this company is a giant, and in times past when companies got this big, powerful and influential, they got busted up by the Feds.  This company is so big, us consumers cannot even hurt it by not patronizing them because they have tentacles all throughout our lives.  And unfortunately, we live in an age now where the government is not benevolent.  It has moved squarely into the malevolent category because these huge behemoth companies pour so much money into Congress and where ever else they can, they have the power to not only sway the governments’ actions, but sway the publics’ perception and opinions as well, thus furthering their un-American, anti-republic agenda as the corrupt politicians take their money, and advise.  And especially in this case, since GE owns such a large number of broadcasting companies, they can engage in all manner of media blitz’s, unchecked, and just bombard the viewers with propaganda that favors GE’s agenda and public persona.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, GE is joined at the hip with the corrupt Feds, trying to push the health care agenda, pushing the notion that digitizing/computerize all your health records will “help” you get better health care in the coming bright, new future of the American health care industry, now that we have all been saved by the Socialist Dems imposition of “ObamaCare”, right?  Well, I don’t see it that way.  As far as the “Healthymagination” campaign is concerned, it is nothing more than a money making scheme for GE.  GE will make an unbelievable amount of money because the Feds are modeling the new healthcare computer system after the GE “Healthymagination” system GE already has in place for its employees.  How convenient!!  How do you feel about unknown types of people’s or entities in the form of various government or commercial enterprises having access to all your medical data at the touch of a button without your permission or knowledge?  This will never happen you say?  Bet me!  You will not only have no knowledge of any of this happening because of the back door approvals having been made authorizing the access, you will then be denied a service of some type or be discriminated against in some way, simply because of your medical background and/or history.  And believe me when I say, you will not benefit from this.  The government or some corporation will, not you.  GE stands to make a ton of money from this.

So, to sum up, the demise of this little innocuous little light bulb plant really is a big deal. GE, China, and the Socialist/Liberal/Marxists benefit while some 200 or more Americans are out of a job, AND an indispensable tool, the incandescent light bulb, is gone, most likely forever……….It is such a crying shame and a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in………But hey!!  We have “Healthymagination” and “ObamaCare”.  All is well with the world….right??

I include here, the text of the letter U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers.  In it there is a direct threat from her to the insurers stating, and I paraphrase, that if the insurance companies tell the truth as to the fact that the premiums are increasing due to the government, they well be punished by being excluded from participating in 2014 Health Insurance Exchanges.  Wow!!  Read it for yourself… We have a member of the Presidents Cabinet threatening a private corporation/s if they tell the truth.  Kathleen Sebelius needs to be brought up before Congress after the November elections to explain her conduct.  This must happen!!

Text:

Ms. Karen Ignagni
President and Chief Executive Officer
America’s Health Insurance Plans
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
South Building, Suite 500
Washington, DC  20004

Dear Ms. Ignagni:

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.  I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.

The Affordable Care Act includes a number of provisions to provide Americans with access to health coverage that will be there when they need it.  These provisions were fully supported by AHIP and its member companies.  Many of the legislation’s key protections take effect for plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.  All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26.  New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services, and a strengthened appeals process.  And health plans that cover early retirees could qualify for reinsurance to sustain that coverage for businesses, workers, and retirees alike.

According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal.  We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent.  This is consistent with estimates from the Urban Institute (1 to 2 percent) and Mercer consultants (2.3 percent) as well as some insurers’ estimates.  Pennsylvania’s Highmark, for example, estimates the effect of the legislation on premiums from 1.14 to 2 percent.  Moreover, the trends in health costs, independent of the legislation, have slowed.  Employers’ premiums for family coverage increased by only 3 percent in 2010 – a significant drop from previous years.

Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law.  These savings include a reduction in the “hidden tax” on insured Americans that subsidizes care for the uninsured.  By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care, and, as a result, the amount of cost shifting to those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013.  By making sure that high-risk individuals have insurance and emphasizing health care that prevents illnesses from becoming serious, long-term health problems, the law will also reduce the cost of avoidable hospitalizations.  Prioritizing prevention without cost sharing could also result in significant savings: from lowering people’s out-of-pocket spending to lowering costs due to conditions like obesity, and to increasing worker productivity – today, increased sickness and lack of coverage security reduce economic output by $260 billion per year.

Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act.  Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections.

Already, my Department has provided 46 states with resources to strengthen the review and transparency of proposed premiums.  Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers.  We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.  Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.

Americans want affordable and reliable health insurance, and it is our job to make it happen.  We worked hard to change the system to help consumers.  It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Sebelius

UPDATED 092010

http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-gop-plans-obamacare-repeal/374DC7E4-5D80-4723-B47C-700EF4EC3FE8.html

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/how-many-congressmen-does-it-take-to-screw-in-a-light-bulb/

UPDATED 111910

MAYBE THERE IS LIFE YET IN AMERICAN JOBS FOR GE….

UPDATED 012011

THE GREEN FOLLIES

UPDATED 050911

SOUTH CAROLINA CALLS BS ON THE FEDS!

1 Comment

HR 4173 – SENATORS PATTY MURRAY AND MARIA CANTWELL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE WALL STREET OVERHAUL BILL (Vote Roll Call included) DOWNLOAD PDFs

TRAITORS TO WASHINGTON STATE CITIZENS

This latest liberal/Marxist/socialist debacle of a Bill passed the Senate today with a 60-38 vote. This Bill has over 2000 pages of regulations that will literally put ACORN and the other activist un-American organizations back to work in the American financial and industrial sectors.  This bill was written by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd so we know it automatically is suspect and should have never been considered.  These two guys are the last people I would trust with anything and needless to say, our Washington State Senators Murray and Cantwell were all for this Bill as stated below:

Final Bill                                              Conference Report

111_hr4173_finsrvcr dodd-frank conference report

——-

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) voted for the Wall Street Reform legislation that will protect Washington state families, hold Wall Street accountable, and guarantee that Washington state taxpayers will never again be on the hook to bail out Wall Street or clean up after big banks’ messes. The legislation passed today by a vote of 60-39 and is expected to be signed into law by President Obama shortly.

“With this vote today, the era of taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts is officially over,” said Senator Patty Murray. “This bill is going to make sure that Washington state families and small business owners are protected from predatory Wall Street tactics. And it will guarantee that American taxpayers will never again be on the hook to bail out the big banks. I was proud to stand up for my state’s families today and against the Wall Street lobbyists and special interests who were fighting so hard to protect big banks and maintain the status quo.”

“Wall Street reform legislation makes a big distinction between Wall Street Mega Banks and Main Street Community Banks. Within the legislation there are positives for Main Street Community banks including asset-based deposit insurance assessments, regulating non-bank financial competitors, deposit insurance limits increased and extending the deposit insurance coverage on non-interest-bearing transaction accounts and ending too big to fail. These enhancements and others will aid community banks in Washington State to continue to support the communities they serve through small business loans and financial services,” said John Collins President of the Community Bankers of Washington state, Washington’s leading association of Community Banks. “By ending ‘too big to fail’ and ensuring that large banks pay for the risks they create to the system this bill takes monumental steps to protect community banks our customers and taxpayers. The Community Bankers of Washington want to particularly commend Senator Murray for the leadership she provided in fighting for provisions that help support community banks and for ensuring that Wall Street’s megabanks pay their fair share for the risks they pose.”

July 14th speech leading up to the vote today 15 July 2010:
“M. President, I have been fighting hard for a Wall Street reform bill that protects my state’s families, holds Wall Street accountable, and includes a guarantee that American taxpayers will never again have to pay to bail out Wall Street or clean up after big banks’ messes.

“And I am proud to say that finally, after months of hard work, we are so close to passing legislation that does exactly this.

“M. President—this should not be a partisan issue. It shouldn’t be about right versus left or Democrats versus Republicans.

“It should be about doing what’s right for families and small business owners in my home state of Washington and across the country.

“It should be about who it is we choose to stand up for—who we think needs our support right now.

“Some people have spent the last few months standing up for Wall Street and big banks: Trying to water down this reform, and fighting every day against any changes that would prevent the big banks from going back to their ‘bonus-as-usual’ mentality.

“But I have been proud to stand with so many others to fight against the Wall Street lobbyists and special interest groups, and for the families I represent in Washington state.

“Families who want us to pass strong reforms that can’t be ignored or sidestepped.

“Who want us to end bailouts and make sure Wall Street is held accountable for cleaning up their own messes.

“And who want us to put in place strong consumer protections to make sure big banks can never again take advantage of our families, students, or seniors.

“Because Mr. President, for most American families this debate isn’t complex—it’s simple.

“It’s not about derivatives or credit default swaps.

“It’s about fundamental fairness. And it’s about making sure we have good, common-sense rules that work for our families and small business owners.

“It’s about the person who walks into a bank to sign up for a mortgage, or applies for a credit card, or starts planning their retirement—
are the rules on their side, or are they with the big banks on Wall Street?

“Because, M. President—for far too long the financial rules of the road have not favored the American people.

“Instead, they’ve favored: Big banks, credit card companies, and Wall Street. And for far too long they’ve abused those rules.

“So M. President, as we approach this vote, I think it is important for all of us to be clear about who it is we are fighting for.

“I am fighting for people like Devin Glaser, a school aide in Seattle who told me he had worked, saved money, and bought a condo before the recession began.

“He told me he put 20% down on a traditional mortgage and was making his payments.

“However, like so many others who have found themselves underemployed as a result of this recession, Devin has been unable to find more than 25 hours of work a week.

“He is now unable to pay his mortgage and is waiting to be foreclosed on any day now.

“I am fighting for people like Rob Hays, a Washington state student whose parents have put retirement on hold and gone back to work in order to send him to school.

“Just a few short years ago Rob’s parents were in the process of selling their home and preparing to retire. But then the foreclosure crisis took hold and they could no longer find a buyer.

“As a result they were forced to pay two mortgages with the money they had saved for Rob’s school—and retirement has been put on hold.

“And I am fighting for people like Jude LaRene a small business owner in Washington state who told me that when the financial crisis hit his line of credit was pulled.

“This forced him to lay off employees, go deep into debt on personal credit cards, and cut back on inventory.

“Despite the fact that his toy stores were more popular than ever!

“President, I am fighting for people like Devin, Rob, and Jude because they are the ones being forced to pay the price for Wall Street’s greed and irresponsibility.

“Whether it was gambling with borrowed money from our pension funds, making bets they could never cover, or peddling mortgages to people they knew could never pay— Wall Street made reckless choices that have devastated so many working families.

“In my home state of Washington, Wall Street’s mistakes cost us over 150,000 jobs.

“They cost the average family thousands of dollars in lost income.

“They cost small businesses the access to credit they need to expand and hire—and in many cases, caused them to close.

“They cost workers the retirement accounts they were counting on to carry them through their golden years. And students the college saving that would help launch their careers.
They cost homeowners the value of their most important financial asset as neighborhoods have been decimated by foreclosures.

“They cost our schoolteachers, our police officers, and our communities. And they cost workers like Devin, students like Rob, and small business owners like Jude.

“Mr. President, we owe it to people like them across the country to reform this system that puts Wall Street before Main Street.

“We owe it to them to put families back in control of their finances.

“We owe it to them to make sure the rules protect families sitting around the dinner table balancing their checkbooks and finding ways to save for the future—not those sitting around the boardroom table finding ways to increase profits at the expense of hard working Americans.

“And to do that, we need to pass this strong Wall Street reform legislation.

“M. President, it is important for families to understand what this bill does—and what exactly opponents of this legislation are fighting against.

“This bill contains explicit language guaranteeing that taxpayers will never again be responsible for bailing out Wall Street.

“It creates a brand new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will protect consumers from big-bank rip-offs, end unfair fees, curb out-of-control credit card and mortgage rates, and be a new ‘cop on the beat’ to safeguard consumers and protect families.

“It puts in place new protections for small businesses from unfair transaction fees imposed by credit card companies.

“It enforces limitations on excessive compensation for Wall Street executives.

“And it offers new tools to promote financial literacy and make sure families have the knowledge to protect themselves and take personal responsibility for their finances.

“I’ve heard so many stories from people across Washington state who have scrimped and saved, who made the best with what they had, but were still devastated through no fault of their own.

“People who played by the rules but who are now paying the price for those on Wall Street who didn’t.

“These are the people we need to stand up for—the people whose Main Street values I fight for every day.

“So M. President, with all of the new protections and reforms that this bill contains for families and small businesses—I have to ask—Who are the opponents of this bill fighting for? Who are they standing up to protect?

“You know, I grew up working at my Dad’s five and dime store on Main Street in Bothell, Washington. And like so many people across our country, Main Street is where I got my values.

“I was taught that the product of your work wasn’t just about the dollars in the till at the end of the day.

“I learned that a good transaction was one that was good for your business AND the customer.

“That strong customer service and lasting relationships often made your business stronger.

“That personal responsibility meant owning up to your mistakes and making them right.

“And that one business relied on the others on the same street.

“I was taught that customers were not prey and businesses were not predators. And that an honest business was a successful one.

“M. President, it’s time for us to bring those Main Street values back to our financial system.

“To bring back an approach that puts Main Street and families over Wall Street and profits.

“That protects consumers, holds big banks accountable for their actions, and makes sure people like Devin, Rob, and Jude are never again forced to bear the burden for the big banks’ mistakes.

“So I urge my colleagues to stand with me against the status quo, and for this strong Wall Street Reform bill that families and small businesses in Washington state and across the country desperately need.

“Thank you—I yield the floor.”

As usual, this diatribe contains the usual rhetoric, lies and backroom deals.  This exemplifies why she must be defeted in November.  When the full impact of this Bill is realized by the American voters, repeal of this bill will also become another one of our battlecrys for the GOP.  WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!  THIS MADNESS MUST STOP IN NOVEMBER!

Senator Cantwell:
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) praised the Senate passage of the unpressidented financial regulatory reform legislation.  For the first time ever,  it requires oversight and transparency in the over-the-counter derivatives markets that were reported to do so much damage to the U.S. economy. Cantwell cast a pivotal vote in a 60-38 roll-call that ended debate, then voted for final passage, which passed by a vote of 60-39. This vote sends the measure to President Obama for his signature. Just before the final vote, Cantwell spoke on the Senate floor, saying that for the first time ever, the previously dark, unregulated swap markets would now be regulated and brought into the light of day.

Her full remarks follow:

“I thank the Chair (Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-CT) for yielding time and I want to thank him for his diligence, particularly in the area of the derivatives market and the fact that this legislation will be the first time, the first time, the over-the-counter derivatives market in this country will be regulated. The fact that Congress made a mistake and said ‘hands off’ to derivatives in 2000, and then an $80 trillion market exploded into what is today a $600 trillion dollar dark market.  The Chairman has now made sure that for the first time, over-the- counter derivatives will be regulated.

“That means for the first time over-the-counter derivatives will have to be exchange traded, which means there will be transparency.

“It’s the first time over-the-counter derivatives will have to be cleared, which means a third party will have to validate whether there is real money behind these transactions.

“And it is the first time the CFTC will be allowed to say that they will be able to enforce aggregate position limits across all exchanges, which means you can’t hide this dark market derivative money on some exchange that isn’t properly regulated or try to make the market across all exchanges. And it is the first time that things like the London Loophole will be closed so that you can’t have markets and exchanges that aren’t regulated.

“So, to the American people, to know that something as dangerous as credit default swaps brought down our economy, that now, for the first time, we will have regulation of these over-the-counter derivatives, I thank the Chairman for his efforts in that area.  A $600 trillion market, which is greater than 10 times the size of world GDP, is a danger to our economy if it is not regulated.

“Thank God we’re going to be regulating it for the first time. And I would encourage all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, at one point in time, said that these are too complicated to understand, understand that they brought down our economy, and understand that we are going to, for the first time, regulate over the counter derivatives.

“I thank the Chair for his leadership.”

Cantwell announced her support for the final version of the financial regulatory reform bill on July 1 because of tough new regulations of derivatives added in final House-Senate negotiations. Cantwell had opposed passage of the Senate version of the bill, citing loopholes in the derivatives title.  Throughout the debate, she tirelessly fought to require transparency in the $600 trillion derivatives market. Cantwell authored an amendment, included in House-Senate conference, to impose tough penalties for evading the clearing and exchange trading requirements for derivatives. Upon completion of the conference version of the bill, Cantwell received written assurance from Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that the bill “explicitly requires that swap dealers, major swap participants and financial entities use a clearinghouse for standardized or ‘clearable’ derivatives transactions.” The bill includes a narrowly-crafted exemption that will allow only legitimate commercial end-users – farmers, airlines, and manufacturers – to continue to hedge business risks without being subject to the clearing and exchange trading requirements. Gensler agreed with Cantwell’s interpretation of the bill: that it imposes strong oversight over the vast majority of derivatives trading. Cantwell said she is disappointed the bill does not reinstate the Glass Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking but believes the bill’s unprecedented regulation of the derivatives market squarely addresses the underlying cause of the financial crisis.

HERE IS THE ROLL CALL ON THIS VOTE:

Senator Party Affiliation State July 15 vote May 20 vote
WYDEN, Ron D OR Y Y
WHITEHOUSE, Sheldon D RI Y Y
WEBB, Jim D VA Y Y
WARNER, Mark R. D VA Y Y
UDALL, Tom D NM Y Y
UDALL, Mark D CO Y Y
TESTER, Jon D MT Y Y
STABENOW, Debbie D MI Y Y
SPECTER, Arlen D PA Y Y
SNOWE, Olympia J. R ME Y Y
SHAHEEN, Jeanne D NH Y Y
SCHUMER, Charles E. D NY Y Y
SANDERS, Bernard I VT Y Y
ROCKEFELLER IV, John D. D WV Y Y
REID, Harry D NV Y Y
REED, Jack D RI Y Y
PRYOR, Mark L. D AR Y Y
NELSON, Bill D FL Y Y
NELSON, Ben D NE Y Y
MURRAY, Patty D WA Y Y
MIKULSKI, Barbara A. D MD Y Y
MERKLEY, Jeff D OR Y Y
MENENDEZ, Robert D NJ Y Y
McCASKILL, Claire D MO Y Y
LINCOLN, Blanche L. D AR Y Y
LIEBERMAN, Joseph I. I CT Y Y
LEVIN, Carl D MI Y Y
LEAHY, Patrick J. D VT Y Y
LAUTENBERG, Frank R. D NJ Y Y
LANDRIEU, Mary L. D LA Y Y
KOHL, Herb D WI Y Y
KLOBUCHAR, Amy D MN Y Y
KERRY, John F. D MA Y Y
KAUFMAN, Edward E. D DE Y Y
JOHNSON, Tim D SD Y Y
INOUYE, Daniel K. D HI Y Y
HARKIN, Tom D IA Y Y
HAGAN, Kay R. D NC Y Y
GILLIBRAND, Kirsten E. D NY Y Y
FRANKEN, Al D MN Y Y
FEINSTEIN, Dianne D CA Y Y
DURBIN, Richard J. D IL Y Y
DORGAN, Byron L. D ND Y Y
DODD, Christopher J. D CT Y Y
CONRAD, Kent D ND Y Y
COLLINS, Susan M.**** R ME Y Y
CASEY, Jr., Robert P. D PA Y Y
CARPER, Thomas R. D DE Y Y
CARDIN, Benjamin L. D MD Y Y
CANTWELL, Maria D WA Y N
BURRIS, Roland W. D IL Y Y
BROWN, Sherrod D OH Y Y
BROWN, Scott********* R MA Y Y
BOXER, Barbara D CA Y Y
BINGAMAN, Jeff D NM Y Y
BENNET, Michael F. D CO Y Y
BEGICH, Mark D AK Y Y
BAYH, Evan D IN Y Y
BAUCUS, Max D MT Y Y
AKAKA, Daniel K. D HI Y Y
WICKER, Roger F. R MS N N
VOINOVICH, George V. R OH N N
VITTER, David R LA N N
THUNE, John R SD N N
SHELBY, Richard C. R AL N N
SESSIONS, Jeff R AL N N
ROBERTS, Pat R KS N N
RISCH, James E. R ID N N
MURKOWSKI, Lisa R AK N N
McCONNELL, Mitch R KY N N
McCAIN, John R AZ N N
LUGAR, Richard G. R IN N N
LeMIEUX, George S. R FL N N
KYL, Jon R AZ N N
JOHANNS, Mike R NE N N
ISAKSON, Johnny R GA N N
INHOFE, James M. R OK N N
HUTCHISON, Kay Bailey R TX N N
HATCH, Orrin G. R UT N N
GREGG, Judd R NH N N
GRASSLEY, Chuck R IA N N
GRAHAM, Lindsey R SC N N
FEINGOLD, Russell D. D WI N N
ENZI, Michael B. R WY N N
ENSIGN, John R NV N N
DeMINT, Jim R SC N N
CRAPO, Mike R ID N N
CORNYN, John R TX N N
CORKER, Bob R TN N N
COCHRAN, Thad R MS N N
COBURN, Tom R OK N N
CHAMBLISS, Saxby R GA N N
BURR, Richard R NC N N
BUNNING, Jim R KY N N
BROWNBACK, Sam R KS N N
BOND, Christopher S. R MO N N
BENNETT, Robert F. R UT N N
BARRASSO, John R WY N N
ALEXANDER, Lamar R TN N N

Leave a comment