January 12, 2014 - (Updated Jan. 13) - The terrible chemical spill in West Virginia last Thursday is a horrible thing. We all agree on that. But who is to blame? Well, certainly Freedom Industries is. That's the company whose chemicals tainted the local water supply for nine counties, and they're owned by the Koch Brothers. Yes, those Koch Brothers, the ones who support Republicans. But there are others to blame: The Democrats who control West Virginia's state government.
Russia Today (RT) ran a story with this incredibly misleading headline: "US House passed bill ravaging toxic-waste law - on same day as W. Virginia chemical spill."
RT wrote this: "As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the Elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law." Emphasis is mine, and made to show you that whatever the U.S. House of Representatives was doing last Thursday had nothing whatsoever to do with what was happening at the same time in West Virginia.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Republicans Threaten To Impeach Obama Over Executive Order On Guns
Jan. 15, 2013 - Prominent Republicans are saying that they would move to impeach Barack Obama if he uses executive orders to limit access to firearms. The White House will announce its plan of action on Wednesday, Jan. 16 at 11:45 ET. Obama will reveal "concrete proposals" to limit our Second Amendment rights, including a ban on "assault weapons" and ways to "strengthen" background checks for gun buyers.
The White House has 19 executive actions that it says are ready for Obama to implement. Such action by Obama would be unilateral. That is, it would be the Executive branch of federal government bypassing the Legislative branch (Congress) to unilaterally make law.
"The president is also expected to outline 19 executive actions that he can unilaterally take, according to Capitol Hill Democrats briefed on his plan," reports The Hill. "Those executive actions are likely to include more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, increasing federal research on gun violence and stronger prosecutions of those who lie on gun background checks."
"The president is also expected to outline 19 executive actions that he can unilaterally take, according to Capitol Hill Democrats briefed on his plan," reports The Hill. "Those executive actions are likely to include more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, increasing federal research on gun violence and stronger prosecutions of those who lie on gun background checks."
New Video From Romney-Ryan: "Meet America's Comeback Team"
From the video "America's Comeback Team" |
"I'm proud to stand with a man," Ryan says in the video, "who understands what it takes to foster job creation in our economy. Someone who knows from experience that if you have a small business, you DID build that!" In the video, Ryan finishes off with, "Together we will unite America and get this done!"
The video, posted by Mitt Romney's YouTube channel, includes this description: "These last four years have seen higher unemployment, declining incomes, and crushing debt. This cannot be the new normal. America needs a comeback. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan: America's Comeback Team."
"The Battleship Wisconsin BB-64 was one of the famous Iowa-class ships. It was commissioned on April 16, 1944 and reported for duty in the Pacific." For more, visit Norfolkvisitor.com.
Congressional Republicans 'Terrified' To Run With Gingrich: Britt Hume
You should not be surprised by Hume's statement. Gingrich, after all, made a lot of enemies within his own party when he was Speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1990s.
Many of those were members of Congress whose toes he stomped on to get his "Contract With America" rammed through the House. (The Senate did not approve of the Contract however, and with President Clinton's vetoes the Contract was actually defeated.) Conservatives in the House of Representatives were so upset with Gingrich, in fact, that they challenged Speaker Gingrich's method of bullying members in a resolution.
"The truth is, nobody actually likes Mr. Gingrich," writes Charles Hurt in The Washington Times today. "They just really don’t like Mr. Romney or Mr. Santorum, and they are a little worried about Rep. Ron Paul." Hurt calls Gingrich "the king of drama," who sometimes plays "the soul-searching Hamlet and at other times the destructive King Lear."
Indeed, many conservative voters are fearing a replay of 2008, in which mealy-mouthed RINO John McCain was pitted against the smoother, hipper Barack Obama. Three years ago, most of us on the Right held our noses and voted for McCain. Others (stupidly) refused to vote for him because he was too moderate or liberal on various issues.
The Contract "set the Republican agenda, which included curbing spending and cutting government waste, opening committee meetings to the public, and reining in the budget," and is credited with helping Republicans to achieve their first majority in the House in 40 years. (Mitt Romney, running against incumbent Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate in 1994, opposed the Contract.)
In December of last year, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) said that Newt Gingrich "lied to the president of the United States" during budget negotiations with George H.W. Bush. Simpson has some bitter memories of the battle for the Contract With America. His story got minor media attention, then quickly faded. It may well surface again before the Republican National Convention.
"Simpson is part of the wing of the Republican Party establishment that remembers Gingrich as a disruptive and destructive force," reported Boston.com on December 9, 2011. Simpson said Gingrich was "one who caused self-inflicted damage to the party and helped set up President Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection and other Democratic victories."
"Now," wrote Boston.com's Michael Kranish, "many members of the Republican Party establishment are watching Gingrich’s rise with trepidation, fearing a repeat may be at hand. In response, some Republicans have aligned with Mitt Romney, and even those who have not made an endorsement, including Simpson, are hoping to remind voters of Gingrich’s record."
In late January of 2012, we find ourselves looking at four remaining candidates, with Gingrich and Romney, both RINOs, as the front runners.
Let's face facts: Neither Rick Santorum nor Ron Paul stand a chance of winning the GOP nomination for president in 2012. While Santorum is a stiff social conservative, he's uninspiring, bland, and was the only Republican who to defend the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which threatened Internet freedom until public outcry defeated it last week. Paul, a Libertarian isolationist appeaser who is trespassing in the GOP primaries by posing as a Republican, is frightening to many would-be Republican voters. He doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination, either, but he has left open the option to run as a third party candidate. (Is it any coincidence that Ron Paul has same initials as Ross Perot? In 1992, conservative Perot siphoned off enough votes from George H. W. Bush that Bill Clinton won the election.)
We conservative voters are left, then, with the prospect of reliving the nightmare of 2008, but with a few extra boogie men in the cast. Santorum, considered "too conservative" by many. Ron Paul, considered too loony by most. Romney, considered by many to be too liberal and now weakened by the South Carolina Gingrich Primary Landslide. Gingrich, the current front runner but also considered too liberal by many.
Of all of them, Gingrich gives the most powerful performance in a debate. That seems to be the one thing that Republicans and conservatives can agree on about him. It's just too bad that what Gingrich says so powerfully has so often sounded like it came from the mouth of a progressive liberal.
Related articles
- Romney loses South Carolina by 31 points, Karl Rove hardest hit (directorblue.blogspot.com)
- Debunking the Beltway Hacks' Latest Spin: Gingrich Will Harm Down-Ticket Republicans (directorblue.blogspot.com)
- Hume's advice to Romney: Find a way to explain capitalism [VIDEO] (dailycaller.com)
Exclusive: Michele Bachmann Plans Wardrobe Adjustment
More Surprises from Obama Healthcare Law-Michael A. Minton
Written by Michael A. Minton
Remember this famous quote from then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? "[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Well, we're finding out.
If this wasn't the Obama administration, this would seem an unbelievable story. While we were promised that Congress would have plenty of time to read every bill that went through when the Democrats controlled both chambers, this, along with other bills, was shoved down the American peoples' throats before there was ever time to absorb it. Now come the consequences.
It is now being reported that "Obamacare" will allow millions of middle-class Americans to get healthcare coverage for practically nothing. In fact, up to three million Americans who retire early, at the age of 62, will qualify for the federal-state sponsored insurance program Medicaid.
Believe it or not, couples who can earn up to $64,000.00 per year will, in the year 2014, qualify for the program which is intended for low income and disabled Americans. This is because, as the AP reports, "in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility."
The Associated Press says the "Medicare chief actuary Robert Foster says ‘The situation keeps me up at night. I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense,' Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting. It's almost like allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps, he suggested.
‘This is a situation that got no attention at all,' added Foster. ‘And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this.'"
Of course, all of this is happening at a time when both the federal and state governments are drowning in debt. With Medicaid, the federal government pays 60% of Medicaid costs, while states must pay 40% of the costs. Obviously, neither can afford the added expense of the problem posed in the bill that "we had to pass to know what was in it."
The depth of ineptness in the Democrat party is just unfathomable. BOTH houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats when this bill was passed, and obviously a Democrat president signed it into law. This is an important point. As 2012 approaches, we must remember that we not only have an inept president who needs to be replaced, but we also have inept members of Congress who need replacing as well!
Of course, for many of these Congressional seats, and even the highest office in the land, I would suggest that you keep in mind that many of those making a lot of the noise, and prompting most of the change on Capitol Hill, are Tea party members who are motivated, invigorated and most importantly, true to their word.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/more-surprises-from-obama-healthcare-law-michael-a-minton-4939336.html
About the Author:
Michael A. Minton got his start in politics at the ripe old age of six, when his father, G. Terry Minton, ran for alderman in Louisville, Kentucky. "Mike" has worked in campaigns to elect (well, naturally his dad), former Rep. Anne Northup, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and most recently in the failed Romney for president campaign.
Mike got his start in his writing career as a freelance reporter for Talon News Service, and has since gone on to create his own blog, Mr. Right Opinion, and now operates a new blog called What's Right is Right.
He has been published in a number of online and print publications to include: Jefferson Review, Heritage Institute, Men's News Daily, RightNation.us, VDare.com, Hawaii Reporter, Lincoln Heritage Institute, fixmyhealthcare.com, CivilHomelandDefense.com, The Pioneer News and others.
Mike is a member of Providence Baptist Church in Brooks, KY, a single father of two daughters, an amateur genealogist, and has been involved in acting, including a role in Camelot at the Kentucky Center for the Arts in Louisville.
------------
Health care graphic from www.jeffhead.com
Constitutional Convention Confusion
I hate chain emails. They're often nothing more than hastily copied-and-pasted ramblings that are full of inaccuracies and hysteria. A dear friend forwarded one such email to me recently. It was about a proposed 28th amendment to the U. S. Constitution (full text below). The wording of the proposed amendment: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
That's fine, but the rest of the email is fraught with half-truths. Nevertheless, it reminded me of a few constitutional issues currently ongoing. Before we look further at that email, let's remember the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th Amendment is all about "states' rights," and is a crucial element of American federalism. Put simply, it guarantees that any powers that are not specifically assigned to the federal government is reserved for the states and the citizenry.
The so-called "proposed 28th amendment" seems like a good idea in spirit. After all, we're all supposed to be equal under the law.
The proposed wording in the email, however, is too simple and based on too many assumptions, too few facts and downright errors. For example, the email erroneously says that "Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention." To my knowledge, and according to my research, this is false.
It is true, however, that 21 states are currently enjoined in suing the federal government over last year's health care reform overhaul. They claim it is unconstitutional for a number of reasons, including the infringement of states' rights. (The states will probably lose in this effort.) Not surprisingly, Obama's Justice Department is moving to crush the suit. The 21 states are: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, and WA.
In May 2010, reports FoxNews, "A group of Republican lawmakers launched a task force on Thursday that seeks to reclaim the powers they say the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away from the 50 states. The 10th Amendment Task Force, a project of the Republican Study Committee, will develop and promote proposals that aim to usher in what supporters are calling a 'New Era of Federalism.' 'When federalism is out of balance, people get hurt,' Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, one of the group's 10 co-founding members, said at a news conference Thursday. 'We want to empower state and local governments'."
Back to the email about "the 28th amendment," (my comments in red):
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
NOTE: Not true. There are two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution. According to Lexis Nexis, "Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment." Did you notice the part that says that two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve it? Uh huh. Then it goes to the states. The other method requires "a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states."
"Two thirds" of 50 state legislatures is 33.33333. Whether that's rounded to 33 or 34 is immaterial: The email falsely claims that "it only takes 38 (of the 50) States" to call a constitutional convention. That's an error of at least five states.
This (proposed amendment) will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
An idea whose time has come
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.
NOTE: This is misinformation. Members of Congress do NOT retire with full pay. From FoxNews, December 2007: Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below). Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary. (More at FoxNews. Fox also notes that, since 1983, members of Congress do pay Social Security.)
Snopes.com also notes the falsehood of the claim of lavish pensions for members of Congress. (See http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp)
Even if Congressional pensions were altered in some way, that would not affect the similarly large pensions enjoyed by many former city council members, state legislators and other elected officials, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of local, county, state and federal bureaucrats. The proponent/s of this amendment also walk the razor's edge of demanding that everyone in America be paid exactly the same wages. Some call that communism. To be frank, I like to think that a member of Congress is paid generously.
Why? Simple: National security. A well-paid member of Congress is less likely to want or need to take bribes, from lobbyists or agents of foreign nations. Well paid public officials are generally not as inclined to steal as those who are not. Ask any police officer in Tijuana.
Have each person contact a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
NOTE: Not true, and it's faulty arithmetic. Let's say you send the email to 20 friends, and each of them send it to 20 people on the first day. That would 20 x 20, or 400 people. On day two, those 400 each send the email to 20 friends. That would be another 8,000.
On day three, each of those 8,000 people sends it to 20 of their contacts. That's 160,000. Let's go on to day four, where 20 x 160,000 becomes 3,200,000 (about 1/10th of the U.S. population). On day five: 64,000,000. On day six: 1,280,000,000 (that's one billion, two hundred eighty million). Granted, the email could theoretically reach an enormous number of people in a short time. However, the email specifically claimed that it would reach "most people" in the U.S. "in three days." There are just over 300 million people in the U.S. "Most" of them would be just over 150,000,000. As we see, nowhere near that number would be reached in three days, and in reality the email would frequently be either ignored, not forwarded, or lost in spam bins.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
You are one of my 20.
Please: Don't forward this to anybody.
That's fine, but the rest of the email is fraught with half-truths. Nevertheless, it reminded me of a few constitutional issues currently ongoing. Before we look further at that email, let's remember the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th Amendment is all about "states' rights," and is a crucial element of American federalism. Put simply, it guarantees that any powers that are not specifically assigned to the federal government is reserved for the states and the citizenry.
The so-called "proposed 28th amendment" seems like a good idea in spirit. After all, we're all supposed to be equal under the law.
The proposed wording in the email, however, is too simple and based on too many assumptions, too few facts and downright errors. For example, the email erroneously says that "Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention." To my knowledge, and according to my research, this is false.
It is true, however, that 21 states are currently enjoined in suing the federal government over last year's health care reform overhaul. They claim it is unconstitutional for a number of reasons, including the infringement of states' rights. (The states will probably lose in this effort.) Not surprisingly, Obama's Justice Department is moving to crush the suit. The 21 states are: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, and WA.
In May 2010, reports FoxNews, "A group of Republican lawmakers launched a task force on Thursday that seeks to reclaim the powers they say the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away from the 50 states. The 10th Amendment Task Force, a project of the Republican Study Committee, will develop and promote proposals that aim to usher in what supporters are calling a 'New Era of Federalism.' 'When federalism is out of balance, people get hurt,' Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, one of the group's 10 co-founding members, said at a news conference Thursday. 'We want to empower state and local governments'."
Back to the email about "the 28th amendment," (my comments in red):
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
NOTE: Not true. There are two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution. According to Lexis Nexis, "Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment." Did you notice the part that says that two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve it? Uh huh. Then it goes to the states. The other method requires "a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states."
"Two thirds" of 50 state legislatures is 33.33333. Whether that's rounded to 33 or 34 is immaterial: The email falsely claims that "it only takes 38 (of the 50) States" to call a constitutional convention. That's an error of at least five states.
This (proposed amendment) will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
An idea whose time has come
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.
NOTE: This is misinformation. Members of Congress do NOT retire with full pay. From FoxNews, December 2007: Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below). Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary. (More at FoxNews. Fox also notes that, since 1983, members of Congress do pay Social Security.)
Snopes.com also notes the falsehood of the claim of lavish pensions for members of Congress. (See http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp)
Even if Congressional pensions were altered in some way, that would not affect the similarly large pensions enjoyed by many former city council members, state legislators and other elected officials, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of local, county, state and federal bureaucrats. The proponent/s of this amendment also walk the razor's edge of demanding that everyone in America be paid exactly the same wages. Some call that communism. To be frank, I like to think that a member of Congress is paid generously.
Why? Simple: National security. A well-paid member of Congress is less likely to want or need to take bribes, from lobbyists or agents of foreign nations. Well paid public officials are generally not as inclined to steal as those who are not. Ask any police officer in Tijuana.
Have each person contact a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
NOTE: Not true, and it's faulty arithmetic. Let's say you send the email to 20 friends, and each of them send it to 20 people on the first day. That would 20 x 20, or 400 people. On day two, those 400 each send the email to 20 friends. That would be another 8,000.
On day three, each of those 8,000 people sends it to 20 of their contacts. That's 160,000. Let's go on to day four, where 20 x 160,000 becomes 3,200,000 (about 1/10th of the U.S. population). On day five: 64,000,000. On day six: 1,280,000,000 (that's one billion, two hundred eighty million). Granted, the email could theoretically reach an enormous number of people in a short time. However, the email specifically claimed that it would reach "most people" in the U.S. "in three days." There are just over 300 million people in the U.S. "Most" of them would be just over 150,000,000. As we see, nowhere near that number would be reached in three days, and in reality the email would frequently be either ignored, not forwarded, or lost in spam bins.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
You are one of my 20.
Please: Don't forward this to anybody.
REPUBLICAN DJOU WINS BIG IN HAWAII SPECIAL ELECTION
Video: Rep Paul Ryan raises a point of order: "This bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates"
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, today made a powerful speech in the House health care session. Here it is. Ryan is suddenly a star of the conservative movement. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/reppaulryan.
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
IL Senate Hearings to Ban Red Light Cameras "Within Two Weeks"
It looks as though the Valentine's Day protest against Red Light Cameras was effective. We've also got an exclusive statement from Adam Robinson, here.
Let's turn to a press release from protest organizer Scott Tucker:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR Log (Press Release) – Feb 16, 2010
Springfield, IL, February 16, 2010 – The Illinois State Senate Transportation Committee Chairman, Senator Martin Sandoval (D-Cicero), today [Tuesday, February 16, 2010] established a Subcommittee on Red Light Cameras.
Senator Sandoval promised, in the record, to hold public hearings within two weeks on SB 2466, a bill to ban red light cameras statewide.
Asked for comment, Scott Tucker, GOP candidate for Illinois’ 11th State House District, said, “I have personally called to thank Senator Sandoval for not burying this bill, and for his commitment, in the record, to hold public hearings on SB 2466, which would ban these cameras statewide, within the next two weeks.”
“I think Senator Sandoval showed a lot of courage today. I think it’s clear that the machine would prefer the status quo when it comes to red light cameras, but that voters are not willing to accept a business as usual attitude when it comes to red light cameras in our state,” Tucker said.
“I think our Valentine’s Day protest, two days ago, was right on-time. We drove thousands of phone calls to Senate President John Cullerton, Senator Sandoval, and to Mike Madigan. And it’s important that we continue to hold these legislative leaders accountable in banning these cameras,” Tucker continued.
“We can ban these cameras statewide, but we need folks to call State Senator Martin Sandoval, who’s the State Senate Transportation Committee Chair, at (708) 656-2002, and thank him for his support of SB 2466 to this point. And please remind him that we expect public hearings on SB 2466 as promised in the record today,” Tucker said.
CONTACT:
Scott Tucker
Candidate for Illinois’ 11th State House
Voice: 773-230-2682; Fax: 773-327-2842
Scott@TuckerMailServer.com
OTHER CONTACTS FOR THIS STORY:
Senator Martin A. Sandoval (D), 12th District, Senate Transportation Committee Chair, (708) 656-2002
Senator Dan Duffy (R), 26th District, author of SB 2466, (847) 277-7100
Senator John J. Cullerton (D), 6th District, President of the Senate, (773) 883-0770
Barnet Fagel, National Motorists Association, (847) 420-3511
RELATED:
Robinson State Sen. Campaign Comments on Transportation Committee's Decision on SB 2466
Slideshow of Red Light Camera Protest, Chicago, Feb. 14
Video of Red Light Camera Protest in Chicago
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
Slideshow of Red Light Camera Protest, Chicago, Feb. 14
Feb. 16, 2010 - Update: Illinois Senate Transportation Committee Chair calls for public hearings Senator Sandoval promised, in the record, to hold public hearings within two weeks on SB 2466, a bill to ban red light cameras statewide. SEE PRESS RELEASE...
The Valentine's Day protest against red light cameras in Chicago was great, with a nice turnout of about 60 people (my estimate), thousands of flyers handed out to passing motorists and - surprisingly - a good showing from the local media. While the event was organized by Republican Scott Tucker, who is running for IL State Rep (11th District), it was not a "Republican event." Liberal candidate for governor William Dock Walls was there, working side by side with Tucker and other Republicans to support Illinois Senate Bill 2466, which would ban red light cameras statewide. See my slideshow of the protest, followed by links to some other blogs that have their own good photos. Also see our video of the event.
Video of Red Light Camera Protest in Chicago
February 14, 2010 - Video of the Valentine's Day protest against red light cameras in Chicago, part of a nationwide effort to get rid of the entrapment of motorists and to improve the safety of intersections. About 60 people gathered at Noon at the busy intersection N. Western and W. Addison on Chicago's north side, holding signs and passing out flyers to motorists. Interviewed are: Scott Tucker, organizer of the protest and Republican candidate for IL State Rep (11th District); Adam Robinson, Republican candidate for IL State Senate (7th District); Scott Davis, Cook County Coordinator of Campaign For Liberty. One of the goals of the group is to urge passage of Senate Bill 2466 (Illinois), which would ban red light cameras. SEE THE LIST OF LAWMAKERS TO CALL, below the video.
Feb. 16, 2010 - Update: Illinois Senate Transportation Committee Chair calls for public hearings Senator Sandoval promised, in the record, to hold public hearings within two weeks on SB 2466, a bill to ban red light cameras statewide. SEE PRESS RELEASE...
Call State Senate President John Cullerton right now and urge him to call SB 2466 for a floor vote! SB 2466 will ban red light cameras in Illinois. John Cullerton 773-883-0770
ALSO call House Speaker Mike Madigan, and tell him that you want SB 2466 called for a floor vote in the State House. Mike Madigan 773-581-8000
Then, please call all members of the State Senate Transportation Committee, and urge them to vote for SB 2466 on Tuesday, February 16 to send SB 2466 to the Senate President for a floor vote:
Sen. Martin A. Sandoval 708-656-2002
Sen. Michael Bond 847-752-7004
Sen. Gary Forby 618-439-2504
Sen. Toi W. Hutchinson 708-756-0882
Sen. David Koehler 309-346-4646
Sen. John M. Sullivan 217-222-2295
Sen. A. J. Wilhelmi 815-207-4445
Sen. Larry K. Bomke 217-782-0228
Sen. Gary G. Dahl 815-220-8720
Sen. John J. Millner 630-351-9340
Sen. Dale E. Risinger 309-693-4921
RELATED:
Full Text of SB2466
Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2466
The Liberty Restoration Project - Red Light Traffic Cameras
City of Chicago - Red Light Camera Violations (official)
Kansas City Courts Overwhelmed By People Protesting Redlight Camera Tickets
Tribune Exposes Suburban Red Light Camera Scam - Parking Ticket Geek
Active Transportation Alliance Does an About-Face on Parking Meter Deal
Chicago 'burb ditches red light cameras, no safety advantage
EDITORIAL: The traffic-camera scam - Washington Times
Photo Radar Protests Spread Nationwide - CameraFRAUD.com
Pinal Cty. sheriff leads protest against speed cameras
Video results for RED LIGHT CAMERAS, PROTEST
Residents protest red-light cameras at Heath council meeting - NewarkAdvocate.com
Police Cameras at Protest Draw Protest - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com
Mississippi House Votes to Ban Ticket Cameras; Missouri and Maryland Protest
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
America Rising 2: An Open Letter to the Republican Party
Young Republicans Boozing
This should be fun. A bunch of young Republicans will gather to drink beer (oh, that must give Mullah Jim Dodge the heebee-jeebies!) and talk politics tonight (Jan. 13) at Faith & Whiskey (1365 W. Fullerton Avenue). The official attraction is the just the sure-to-come fireworks of the GOP gubernatorila candidates' debate, which will be televised on ABC7 Chicago. That will be entertaining enough, but the world will be watching the crowd at Faith & Whiskey. I'm told there will be a BBC news crew there to get opinions about the first year of the Obama Administration, as well as the current political mood in Illinois, Land of Corruption. Sen. Steve Rauschenberger will be on hand and rumor has it that embattled Congressman Mark Kirk may stop by.
Now, I mentioned Jim Dodge a moment ago. He's the liberal Republican running for Comptroller who's been criticizing his opponent, conservative Republican Bill Kelly, for - get this - drinking beer. Will Dodge attack the Young Republicans for being at Faith & Whiskey, where the drink specials tonight include $1.00 Old Styles and $3.00 well drinks? More details, courtesy of the Chicago Young Republicans:
The Chicago Young Republicans (CYR) will gather to view the ABC7/League of Women Voters Gubernatorial Debate. Here, individuals will decide who they want to support to face the Democrat opposition next fall and discuss Governor Quinn’s State of the State address.
Who: The CYRs with special guest Steve Rauschenberger, Former State
Senator and Former Candidate for U.S. Senate & Governor.
What: The CYRs will be available for debate & state of the state reaction.
When: Wednesday January 13, 6:00-10:30pm.
Where: Faith & Whiskey, 1365 W. Fullerton Ave, Chicago IL
If you would like to know more about the campaign or the Chicago Young Republicans please contact Corrine Williams at (305) 479-5683 or via email at CorrineAnnWilliams@gmail.com or Jeremy Rose at (630) 835-6049 or via email at jermy85@gmail.com
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
Open Letter: "Listen. Because We Are Coming"
The following letter is rapidly circulating around the country and, like thousands of other folks, I received a copy. Let's give it some more traction. The friend who sent a copy to me added, "Americans everywhere identify with this 53-year-old woman. She has given us a voice. Once you read this, you will want to forward it to all of your friends. Let's see how many people cut this woman down for saying exactly what most of us want to yell into the ears of every representative and senator in Washington. This letter is not a slam at the Democrats, it is a slam at the Democrat AND Republican politicians who are screwing up our country."
Here is the woman's open, unedited letter to our nation's leadership:
"I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues a re that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, Illegal Immigration: I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, The Stimulus Bill: I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three, Czars: I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, Cap and Trade: The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.
Five, Universal Healthcare: I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, Growing Government Control: I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN: I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, Redistribution of Wealth: No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why -- what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, Charitable Contributions: Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, Corporate Bailouts: Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, Transparency and Accountability: How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try -- please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, Unprecedented Quick Spending: Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency.. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far o ff course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words Stop treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long.
You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired.
Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you.. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming."
Leave a Comment
Conservative T-Shirts
Follow CNB on Twitter
RSS Feed
Video "Why We Fight" from Cook County GOP
Cook County is a seething cesspool of Democrat corruption. Who presides over that cesspool? Who has nurtured and benefitted from the cesspool? The Democrats. Now, the Republicans are fighting back, harder than they have in a long time. Will the sheeple of Cook County wake up and smell the cesspool? Frankly, I doubt it. But the new video below give a little hope that the til-now-ineffectual GOP has regrown a set of testicles. Maybe. (Hat tip to Marathon Pundit.) As described by the Cook County GOP, "Republicans across Cook County are mobilizing like never before to take their county back. This video was unveiled at the 2009 Cook County Republican Convention in Rosemont."
Related: 10 Governors I Wish We Had in Illinois by Jerry Agar.
Conservative Caps, Shirt and more!
Leave a Comment - Chicago News Bench RSS Feed
Visit us on Twitter!
Related: 10 Governors I Wish We Had in Illinois by Jerry Agar.
Conservative Caps, Shirt and more!
Leave a Comment - Chicago News Bench RSS Feed
Visit us on Twitter!
The Democrats Are Afraid (You Should Be Too)


ACORN's Secret Finances
Bill O'Reilly interviews two ACORN chiefs, Gloria Swieringa and Bertha Lewis. They dance around O'Reilly's straightforward questions in this amusing - and disturbing - interview:
Leave a Comment...
See Our Online Store
Chicago News Bench RSS Feed
We're on Twitter...
Exclusive Interview With Tony Peraica This Week
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)