Hi Marcy,
I'm sorry Obama's Prayer didn't do much good for you. For most, if not
all, liberals, especially apologetic white ones, chanting Obama's Prayer
provides them with much spiritual uplift and helps them confirm their
fealities to their Lord and to their religion of socialism.
<< . . . since in my opinion no point thinking badly of one politician,
when we have so very many to absorb the blame for the mess this country
is in. >>
Yes, there are many politicians who share the blame for the mess this
country is in. At the federal level, we can name just about every member
of Congress and the Supreme Court. Many of whom I have criticized. But I
reserve my most vitriolic criticisms against Obama.
This is mainly because the mainstream mass media (mmm) has coddled him
from Day 1 of his 2008 campaign. Withness: No mmm outlet seriously
questioned his ability to manage the U. S, his squalid political past,
his connections with unsavory characters, or even whether he is
constitutionally qualified to be POTUS. And when after many demands,
the FEC refused to audit Obama's $760,000,000 campaign money, did you
hear the deafening outcry from the mmm?
And during his (sad) presidency, the mmm have mostly treated him with
kid gloves and given him many passes. Even now, no mmm outlet is
decrying Obama's latest unconstitutional outrage with his "recess
appointments." (See for examples these items from the Washington Times,
hardly an mmm outlet:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/hurt-obamas-naked-thugger\\
y/
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/hurt-obamas-naked-thugge\\
ry/> and
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/no-time-for-advice-and-co\\
nsent/
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/no-time-for-advice-and-c\\
onsent/> )
Yes Marcy, there are many politicians to blame for the mess we're in.
But Obama is at the top of the heap. And while the mostly liberal mmm
continues to coddle Obama, their are many less liberal mmm outlets that
have focused on Obama's outrages, although they're often shouting into
the forest.
Still, here's a scary thought: When we focus on Obama's outrages such as
the Solyndra scandal, his failed economic policies, his constant class
warfare refrain, and his current "recess appointments," to name just a
few outrages, are we being manipulated? Think of a magician. To pull off
his magic trick, he often directs you to look somewhere else, so he can
perform his "sleight of hand." Is Obama serving as a misdirection, so
that a "sleight of hand" is performed while we're not looking? If so,
who are those magicians? And what are the tricks they're trying to pull
off?
In any event, I do thank you for your reply.
Alton
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:
Hi Alton,
You are correct; we already have ways to publicize the tons of
silliness emanating from all our fearless leaders, such as the
legislative registers you mention. I would go with publicizing that
rather than creating more verbiage, even if the verbiage is directed
against politicians.
No, the prayer you suggest does not do me much good, since in my
opinion no point thinking badly of one politician, when we have so very
many to absorb the blame for the mess this country is in.
Marcy
>
> Hi Marcy,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> I see any "RTB type act" as a step in the right direction to impede
and
> discourage legislators from proposing new bills, especially 1,000+
page
> ones with the convoluted language that only lawyers, bureaucrats and
> politicians love. And if "another thick layer of bureaucracy
designed to
> enforce the act" is created, that won't be bad, since the
bureaucracy
> will be turned against politicians for a change. Who said turnabout
> isn't fair play?
>
> Still, when I proposed that Representatives and Senators submit
their
> annotated copies of the bills they read, along with their sworn
> affidavits to either the GAO or the Library of Congress, I don't
think
> I've necessarily created "another thick layer of bureaucracy." Yes,
> people will "audit" those copies, and keep records on who has
properly
> complied with the law, which legislators must comply with before
they're
> allowed to vote on the bill in question.
>
> As for your objective to "Publicize the tons of rules and
regulations
> uselessly addressing every aspect of our lives that comes out of
> legislative bodies," doesn't the Federal Register already do this?
(If
> you haven't done so, you must subscribe to it.) According to the GPO
> (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html):
>
> Published [daily] by the Office of the Federal Register, National
> Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register
> is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and
> notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as
> executive orders and other presidential documents.
>
> Of course, after all those "tons of rules and regulations" become
newly
> enacted, they're published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
> According to the GPO (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html):
>
> The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the
general
> and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the
> executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is
> divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to
> Federal regulation. Each volume of the CFR is updated once each
> calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis. (My emphasis.)
>
> Among those "Titles" is Title 26, "Internal Revenue" otherwise known
as
> "The Tax Code." Contrary to what many may believe, "The Tax Code" is
not
> just about the Income Tax since it contains the laws that pertain to
> every tax, such as alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, tires, airline
tickets,
> playing cards (though since repealed), etc. Still, despite the
> voluminous sections pertaining to income taxes, Title 26 contains
not
> one section that explicitly requires anyone to pay an income tax or
file
> such returns. Were such a section to exist, it would be
> unconstitutional. Yes, I know that Amendment 16 authorizes an income
> tax. Thus, the income tax is "constitutional." But the way it's
> currently (and has been) collected is unconstitutional. (See for
> example. http://www.paynoincometax.com/great_giveaway.htm)
>
> Anyhow, I must sadly agree when you said:
>
> Problem is, such a hefty number of folks out there view the
government
> as their protector; and to protect, government needs to regulate the
> actions of those who are viewed as non cooperative. Thus, more laws
are
> constantly being clamored for.
>
> Of course the current occupant in the White House agree with these
> folks. He even said during a 60 Minutes interview that he sees the
> President's job as one "to help people and solve [their] problems."
>
> On that note, Marcy, I like to ask you to take a minute and recite
> "Obama's Prayer" with me:
>
> Obama is my Lord.
> I shall always honor, cherish and obey him.
>
> Obama is good. He will take care of me. He will look out for me.
> He will provide for me.
>
> Obama is beneficent. Obama is omniscient. Obama is omnipresent.
>
> Obama is God.
> God is Obama.
>
> Mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm.
>
> Amen.
>
> Thanks again for your reply.
>
> Alton
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alton,
> >
> > I would have two objectives in any RTB type act, 1. Make sure the
act
> did not add another thick layer of bureaucracy designed to enforce
the
> act. 2. Publicize the tons of rules and regulations uselessly
> addressing every aspect of our lives that comes out of legislative
> bodies.
> >
> > Problem is, such a hefty number of folks out there view the
government
> as their protector; and to protect, government needs to regulate the
> actions of those who are viewed as non cooperative. Thus, more laws
are
> constantly being clamored for.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Marcy,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply.
> > >
> > > [Aside: As I told previously told Marge, I referred to
> Representatives
> > > and Senators as "legislatures." A legislature is the body of
> government
> > > where laws and regulations are written. A legislator, however,
is a
> > > member or an actual body of the the legislature. Thus, I should
have
> > > referred to Representatives and Senators as legislators. Please
> pardon
> > > my error.]
> > >
> > > I also thank you for and greatly appreciate your "heads up"
about
> > > Downsize DC's proposed "Read The Bills Act."
> > >
> > > I liked that RTBA would require "Any member of Congress wishing
to
> cast
> > > an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or
the
> > > creation or retention of a program or bureaucracy, must sign an
> > > affidavit swearing that he or she has either . . .Read the
entire
> bill .
> > > . .."
> > >
> > > I feel that doesn't go far enough. What proof do we have that
the
> > > legislator had actually read the entire bill? His/her word?
(Would
> > > reading the Cliff Notes® version of the bill be a valid claim
of
> > > reading the entire bill?) That's not good enough for me, which
is
> why I
> > > suggest we go further by requiring legislators to provide the
actual
> > > copy of the bill they read, that shows their margin notes,
comments
> and
> > > annotations. I'd also require they name in the margins the parts
of
> the
> > > Constitution that authorized every section of a bill. Of course,
> > > legislators could have their staff do the "heavy lifting" by
writing
> > > those margin notes, but the scandal they'll risk might be one
> they'll
> > > want to avoid.
> > >
> > > Still, I was intrigued by the proposed affidavit's second option
> that
> > > any member of Congress "Heard the entire bill read."
> > >
> > > Specifically, RTBA proposes a "quorum reading requirement" which
> will be
> > > held "before a quorum of each chamber of Congress." This will
mean
> that
> > > "all floor business will halt while a Constitutional quorum is
> present
> > > for a full, literal, word-for-word, in-order, reading of the
entire
> > > bill."
> > >
> > > And this will be a wonderful idea, which it is, because:
> > >
> > > In short, the quorum reading requirement will give Congress a
huge
> > > incentive to make bills shorter, clearer, and more focused, so
that
> the
> > > members of Congress can better endure the fatigue of hearing
them
> read!
> > >
> > > BTW, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 defines a "quorum" as "a
> Majority of
> > > each [House]." That means at least 218 Representatives and 51
> Senators
> > > must be present for such a quorum reading. How will RTBA require
a
> > > quorum? Would a schedule be made? Would legislators be required
to
> > > attend based on seniority, relevant committee membership, amount
of
> > > influence the have with lobbyists, or amount of money they
raised
> for
> > > their campaigns? What if a quorum was originally met, but during
the
> > > reading several members leave and the quorum is no longer met?
Will
> the
> > > reading be null and void?
> > >
> > > Nagging questions, sure, but I do like that RTBA "has several
> mechanisms
> > > to compel compliance," of which two were noted:
> > >
> > > First, RTBA is a law, NOT a mere rule. The evidence is
overwhelming
> that
> > > Congress doesn't obey rules. Enforceable laws are needed
instead.
> > >
> > > Second, Congressional rules can't be enforced by the courts.
> Properly
> > > written laws can be. That's why RTBA contains the following
> enforcement
> > > mechanism . . .
> > >
> > > Any law enacted in violation of any provision of RTBA, OSTA, or
WTLA
> can
> > > be considered invalid in a court of law. How?
> > >
> > > All citizens will have a sufficient defense, when charged in
court
> by
> > > presenting evidence that the law they're accused of violating
was
> passed
> > > in violations of RTBA, rendering the law null and void.
> > >
> > > No mere rule can be enforced in this way. Only a law can give
> citizens
> > > this kind of protection.
> > >
> > > That sounds all well and good. But I'm uncertain how much
success
> > > citizens will have using the proposed defense "when charged in
> court." I
> > > think of the Paperwork Reduction Act which requires the
government
> to
> > > provide an "OMB number" and an expiration date on every form it
> requires
> > > We the People to complete. The government must also provide
their
> > > statutory authorization for creating the form, how much time is
> needed
> > > to complete the form, why the information is needed, and whether
> > > completing the form is voluntary or mandatory. All this
information
> must
> > > appear on every form, lest We the People could consider the form
a
> > > "bootleg" and ignore it.
> > >
> > > It may surprise you that since Form 1040 and just about every
IRS
> form
> > > don't fully comply with PRA, they can properly be considered
> "bootlegs"
> > > and legally ignored by We the People. But has anyone
successfully
> used
> > > PRA as a defense to stop paying their income taxes or filing
such
> forms?
> > > (See for example.
http://www.paynoincometax.com/great_giveaway.htm)
> > >
> > > Anyhow, RTBA is certainly a step, a huge one, towards reforming
how
> > > Congress write laws. And I certainly agree when Downsize DC
> concludes:
> > >
> > > If the citizens Congress supposedly serves must be responsible
for
> > > obeying and paying for every word of every law Congress enacts,
then
> > > every member of Congress must be responsible for reading every
word
> of
> > > every bill before they vote to pass it.
> > >
> > > << At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she
> intimated
> > > nobody
> > > reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we are all
> stuck
> > > with
> > > forever. >>
> > >
> > > Yes. But many people probably correctly suspect that their
> > > representatives never read the bills they propose or enact. But
then
> why
> > > should they? They could just let the bureaucrats do that when
they
> > > "enforce" the provisions of those bills.
> > >
> > > << Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter
> > > responding to
> > > mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too. >>
> > >
> > > My cynical question as to whether Sen. Feinstein actually wrote
the
> > > letter to respond to your letter was not meant to denigrate or
cast
> > > aspersion to your efforts to make Feinstein give some accounting
for
> her
> > > actions. I hope you didn't feel I did. Please keep up your
efforts
> and
> > > swell job.
> > >
> > > It's just that Feinstein's letter reminded me of my contact with
> Rep.
> > > Jerrold Nadler's office in 2003, just before the Iraqi invasion.
I
> first
> > > called his office from my job, which was located in his
district. I
> told
> > > his staff member my concerns that Congress did not declare war
with
> > > Iraq before allowing Bush to invade it. And I asked why Nadler
did
> not
> > > protest. The staff member asked whether I lived in Nadler's
> district.
> > > When I said I didn't, she basically told me to get lost. I
called
> again
> > > a few days later, with the same concern and question and I said
I
> lived
> > > in Nadler's district. The staff member said she would bring my
> concerns
> > > to the Congressman. A few weeks later, I got a form letter,
> > > "hand-signed" by Nadler that said he appreciated my contact with
his
> > > office with "legitimate" concerns. He also said he supports
Bush's
> War
> > > on Terrorism and that he hopes everyone will support him. Or
words
> to
> > > that effect. I wished I kept the letter. But I do hope you'll
keep
> > > Feinstein's letter to you.
> > >
> > > That's all for now.
> > >
> > > Thanks again for your reply and the "heads up" to Downsize DC's
> proposed
> > > RTBA.
> > >
> > > Alton
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alton,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, somehow all the garbage..I mean, verbiage, generated in
tons
> of
> > > rules and regulations has got to be curbed! I do not recall any
> actual
> > > bill being passed that requires Congress to read the bills they
> enact
> > > into law. However, "Downsize DC" has been promoting a "Read the
> Bill
> > > Act". You can go to their website, read about it, and click to
send
> a
> > > letter to your Congressperson encouraging him/her to support the
> Act.
> > > >
> > > > https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/
> > > >
> > > > At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she
> intimated
> > > nobody reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we
are
> all
> > > stuck with forever.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter
> > > responding to mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too.
> > > >
> > > > Marcy
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Marcy,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was taken by your comment, which I was glad you made:
> > > > >
> > > > > Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole
S.
> > > 1867,
> > > > > which is
> > > > > almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health
> insurance
> > > to
> > > > > retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we are
> latching
> > > on
> > > > > to the
> > > > > indefinite detainment clause, without knowing what other
> > > > > unconstitutional stuff
> > > > > is in this bill (or most bills!)
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you recall when Polosi famously said that we can find out
> what's
> > > > > inside the pending "Obamacare" legislation, some 3,000 pages
> long,
> > > after
> > > > > it's passed? That was her defining moment, wasn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, I recall someone proposed legislation to require
> Senators
> > > and
> > > > > Representatives to sign a statement to certify that they
read
> and
> > > > > understood every bill they intend to vote on. Do you recall
it?
> > > > >
> > > > > If it were up to me, I would also require these bums, er,
> > > respectable
> > > > > legislatures to present the actual copies of the bills they
> read,
> > > > > showing their margin notes, annotations, and comments. I'd
also
> > > require
> > > > > them to name in those margins the specific Constitutional
> sections
> > > that
> > > > > authorizes every section of the bill.
> > > > >
> > > > > These annotated bills and signed certifications should be
> submitted
> > > to a
> > > > > new department within the GAO or perhaps within the Library
of
> > > Congress,
> > > > > who could store these documents for posterity and convert
them
> to
> > > PDF
> > > > > format, searchable by We the People. And only after a
Senator or
> a
> > > > > Representative has done this, will they be allowed to vote
on a
> > > proposed
> > > > > bill.
> > > > >
> > > > > If such a legislation, "I Certify I Read The Bill Act," were
> > > enacted,
> > > > > I'll bet many legislatures will enroll in Evelyn Woods Speed
> Reading
> > > > > classes. Or at the very least, no one will sponsor 1,000 +
page
> > > > > legislation lest they incur the ire of their fellow
> legislatures.
> > > > > Hopefully, we'll see proposed legislation of one or two
pages
> long,
> > > > > plainly written without the convoluted phrasing that
lawyers,
> > > > > bureaucrats and legislatures love. Those newly "truncated"
> bills
> > > would
> > > > > even be easily understood by people with sixth-grade reading
> levels!
> > > > >
> > > > > Just my highly depreciated two cents.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alton
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, do you think Feinstein actually wrote that letter? Or
do
> you
> > > think
> > > > > it was written by her staff and sent out to others who made
the
> same
> > > > > inquiry you made?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists"
<amarcyb@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Marge,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To her credit (or cleverness), Feinstein did introduce
some
> lame
> > > > > amendments to the original S.1867, all rejected. S. 2003
> appears to
> > > be
> > > > > still in the works. It is a couple of sentences long, and it
> > > clarifies
> > > > > that even in case of war (started by the President or by
> Congress),
> > > > > citizens or legal residents of the US cannot be held without
> charge.
> > > > > Well, I doubt that two conflicting laws can peacefully
> co-exists; so
> > > who
> > > > > knows. Here is a link, and I apologize in advance that my
links
> > > never
> > > > > seem to work
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1122Ocszg::
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the
whole
> S.
> > > 1867,
> > > > > which is almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from
> health
> > > > > insurance to retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would
bet
> we
> > > are
> > > > > latching on to the indefinite detainment clause, without
knowing
> > > what
> > > > > other unconstitutional stuff in in this bill (or most
bills!)