|
Comments “”
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Emperor's Rants and Observations
One Alaskan's View
Powered by WordPress MU & hosted by Allalaskans.com
Create a new blog and join in the fun! Mandigo theme by tom
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
|
Comments “”
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Powered by WordPress MU & hosted by Allalaskans.com
Create a new blog and join in the fun! Mandigo theme by tom
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
Thank you. Glad you liked it. Hope to see you back soon.
Sarah, I was surprised when I heard the announcement last Friday and at first disappointed and then I thought you had
your reasons and then you explained and I am sure you put much prayer behind your decision and I for one will
support you as much as I can. I am not financially able to do much but just to let you know I support whatever you
will be doing in prayer and in any other way I can. I know my son who lives in Alaska is probably disappointed and
I believe he is for you. The Lord Bless you in your future endeavors. David Baerresen
I am not worthy to address you. I offer you three hundred chickens for your protection!
You can write in complete sentences, that makes anyone worthy of addressing me. Protection? From whom do you seek protection? Not that it really matters, I couldn't protect you from anything. If I could, the price would be in gold not poultry, that much I know for certain. Chickens are nasty, stupid creatures, who's highest purpose in life is to be marinated and grilled outdoors.
Your mighty good emp. I sure like how this is written.
Don't ever break up with me, mentally, spiritually or digitally.
Thank you Mae, I plan on being here for awhile.
I agree campaign finance reform is the number one issue that threatens to derail the will of the people in the republic left by our forefathers. We are tuning in to a corporate aristocracy.
Just added to “Emperor's World View”
I’m not a Christian but I’m going to appropriate Galatians 5: 22-23 as good standards to try and live up to.
When I read Spirit in that context, I interpret it as the “Human Spirit”. But I join with Christians or anyone else who truly try to live up to that standard. [credit to Alaskan Librarian for the inspiration]
Thank you, I appreciate your perspective.
Thanks for taking the time to read it.
Yes, I stand with Barack Obama in his reforms for the health care system. There are many reasons why his reforms must be be quickly implemented, firstly more than 47 million U.S. residents have no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing. Secondly our Working families are experiencing double-digit increases in the costs of their health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions, forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse…last but not least the failure of the previous health care systems will demand for new reforms such as this, playing politics at the time when millions of citizens life is at stake will certainly hamper the well-being of the country.
Interesting report below:
Link : http://en.oboulo.com/the-failure-of-america-s-h...
Fingers crossed!
We have been a corporate aristocracy for decades. Our elected officials are the best that money can buy.
Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. Others no doubt will like it like I did.
Insightful read. I have just bookmarked this at stumbleupon. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.
It is the obligation of ANY duly elected representative to pay attention to the desires of and act in accordance with his constituents' wishes. While many politicians do take that to extremes to stay in popularity, Sullivan's statement implies that most of the people who directed opinions at him voiced opposition to the measure. Regardless of his personal feelings, he could not ignore the comments directed at him on the matter.
As for the measure itself, I think it would be lovely if people didn't have to worry about discrimination in looking for jobs and whatnot. However, I don't believe anti-discrimination laws will help anything. While an employer couldn't officially use that as a reason not to hire people, they could still produce a hostile or unwelcoming environment. With the help of other employees to witness on the employer's behalf, someone could face discrimination in the workplace after being hired with no recourse for relief. Aren't people, then, better off finding a workplace that will welcome them without being required to by law? You're not going to cure the disease by treating the symptoms.
The majority isn't always right. The majority once thought slavery was ok. The majority once thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote or own property. This is a case where the minority was asking for equal rights in employment, housing and credit. Even if the majority doesn't believe people deserve protection based on their sexual orientation, he is mayor of the entire municipality, not just the ones he agrees with.
I'm not convinced that those messages were from Anchorage residents at all. Most of the testimony at the Assembly hearings against the ordinance was bussed in from outside Anchorage. Prevo made a concerted effort to get his cult members to contact the mayor. It was a vocal minority inspired by fascist leadership.
The law won't stop all bigots, just like there are still people that won't hire or rent to some minorities in violation of the law. But what the law would provide is legal recourse for those people that are victims of discrimination. People wouldn't be in fear of losing their job or their home if it became known they were gay.
By vetoing the ordinance Sullivan has validated that it's ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation. He did it with the lamest of excuses. He witnessed the venomous hatred that was spewed by opponents to the ordinance and then said there was no evidence of a problem? He's a bigot and his veto MUST be overturned.
The fact that the majority isn't always right doesn't change the fact that it's still a representative's duty to *represent.* It's not the representative's fault that the vocal majority of his constituent group is on the wrong track. If non-Anchorage-residents are getting their opinions in disguised as Anchoragites, then that's a sign that the communication system needs checking methods implemented.
Thanks for this supportive post. And yes, if the discrimination was against breeders this law would have passed easily.
When it relates to issues like road projects or budget items, then yes the representative should represent their constituents to the degree that they can. When it comes to protecting people from discrimination, then an elected official should do what is right, not what is popular or expedient. Promoting bigotry, hate and discrimination is NEVER right.
You also neglect that the Assembly members who voted for the ordinance were also representing their constituents. In order for the mayor to be justified in vetoing the vote of those representatives, the bar should be higher than he doesn't think it is needed.
Even if you could convince me that the Mayor should do whatever the majority wanted (which you can't) it would have to be more than 2500 out of 180,000 registered voters (1.4%). Prevo has that many cult members. This is a very vocal minority that is not representative at all of the majority of Anchorage citizens. They are driven by religious zealotry, not equality for everyone. They are driven by hatred and intolerance and for the Mayor of Anchorage to side with them is more than just disappointing, it's disgusting and shameful.
As for the question of whether outside agitators were bussed in for the testimony at the assembly, that is a known fact that Ossiander acknowledged and still allowed them to sign up after the original hearing date.
I'm waiting for the Municipal Clerks Office to email a copy of the Mayor's Oath of Office. I'm sure they were busy with other more important things than emailing me a copy of something that should be publicly available on their website. But when I see it, we can talk about the actual oath that the Mayor took to see if he acted accordingly in vetoing the ordinance.
[...] from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred. – allalaskans.com 08/18/2009 Facts About Sexual Orientation It is the policy of the [...]
I sent an email to the Assembly as a whole and also to Mr. Sullivan.
To commenter Lena: the problem with your logic about the 'majority' is that 2500 out of over 200,000 ISN'T the majority. It's just the folks who voiced their opinion to the mayor directly. Also, there is no way to quantify these numbers or their intent. It was simply an off hand statement the Mayor made to justify his veto. Not to mention in a representative democracy we elect our decision makers, this is not a direct democracy. Our elected officials who were chosen to decide on this matter are the Assembly. They decided by a majority to pass the ordinance. The mayors veto was undermining, reckless and smacks of a desperate attempt to keep the powerful elite happy. No one can deny that the Anchorage Baptist Temple took a very public stance on this matter and unduly influenced their congregation (which is over 2000 people, as stated on their website.) to complain to local law makers.
The majority does not generally make good decisions for the minority. That's why this decision wasn't set to a public vote, but instead to a panel of educated and objective officials who can make decisions impartially for the whole.
Any public official should be aware that the vocal majority will be whining and be nothing compared to the silent majority that is just fine with the status quo. If he did indeed here both sides of the issue equally then he'd be fully aware that many of the communications are from people outside of his jurisdiction and, thus, unaffected by the ordinance. No matter which way you personally feel about the issue, the mayor is a spineless weasel hiding behind a flimsy pretense because Republicans are far better at making elected officials' lives difficult than Democrats are. Darling Lisa has been opposing any sort of action on towards gay marriage or even civil unions for years for that same exact reason. I mean there may be some actual bigotry there too but whether there is or is not is pretty inconsequential, in my opinion.
In my mind, though, the situation brings up a few questions that I feel should be answered before I can fully throw my support into the ring of the gays. As I'm an unknown here let me first state categorically that I love gays. I think gay people are fantastic. I live near San Francisco and before that I was an actor at UAA. I think it's fair to say that I am around at any given time a fairly significant amount of gay people and, as a straight male, this does not bother me. (I actually get a bit offended if gay men -don't- check me out, to be perfectly honest.) You want yer government-sanctioned gay marriage? I am aaall over that. I think that y'all should be as free to throw yourselves madly into a 10-year, monogamous relationship of candlelight dinners and sponge baths before ending it abruptly when someone comes back to find their partner blowing the pool boy as all hetero couples are.
That aside.
I honestly fail to see how sexual preference even comes up in regards to job hiring or getting a loan. While I'm finding it rather humorous to imagine the reasoning that would be used by anyone denying a homosexual person a line of credit (”No offense Jim, but while we're okay with giving the biker gang down the street home loans, you are just too *gayyyy*”) I'm finding it equally humorous imagining how that information would even be revealed. “Name?” “Big gay Al.” “Sex?” “All the time, from hot, sweaty men!” “Gender?” “I thought I just told you…?” “Never mind.” I mean I don't exactly feel the need to talk to random strangers, especially not ones who I'm relying on to think I am not-insane, about how much I *love* to do it with girls. Even the ones I'm pretty sure are themselves straight. They don't care and they shouldn't. It's none of their business. I could see the logic for *keeping* the job (it gets awkward when your cubicle buddy won't shut up about trying to bond over the cute member of the opposite sex that keeps passing by but when you have to tell that person you don't even share a viewpoint on what gender is attractive, that could lead to trouble–not the fault of the gay person, understand, that's totally the straight person's problem in that case but unfortunately the gay person's more likely to get fired. Which, is, ridiculous. Yes. But it's a different argument.) Or if, I dunno, some gay people get evicted because the straight bigots nearby got tired of the constant orgiastic homosexual sex going on next door (Though if it was straight sex and I was that neighbor I would still be tempted to stir up a fuss out of sheer jealous spite). However as far as I can tell the ordinance only covers hiring and acceptance practices, not what comes later. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference is different from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or disability because in order to be turned down for a job because you're gay the employer would first have to actually know you're gay. Though, I suppose he could suspect, in which case “your application was denied on the grounds of suspected gayness” would become a legal and accepted reason for not getting a job. This both amuses and frightens me. Moving on.
As stated previously, all enacting this law effectively does is tell employers that they have to lie about their bigotry and come up with any plausible excuse to cover it up. Considering how tight the job market, and housing market, is these days, opportunities to do this are legion. Assuming that this law is enacted and Gay G. McGay from Gayerton, (a suburb of Ketchican) prances in with the full crossdressing getup on, somehow aces the interview despite this, (another highly amusing visual) and scores well on all the tests… it doesn't matter. These days, an employer will have at least a dozen if not more applications on his desk that will be likely to have similar or better qualifications than whoever my fictional stereotype has. And even if he doesn't, he can just lie and say that he does, and Mr. stereotype has absolutely no legal recourse.
I think it's insane that people are so up in arms about what sexual orientation other people, or indeed they themselves, are. In my mind, people should care a lot less and be a lot more comfortable with themselves and each other, and just let people do their own thing as long as it's not bothering anybody. However, I fail to see what enacting this law will actually accomplish in terms of real world impact on homosexuals in the working class or trying to break into said class. It gives the activists something to crow about, sure, ego boosts are wonderful, but I think y'all need a little more help than that.
The law isn't going to stop bigotry. The law doesn't stop bigots from discriminating against others by race or religion either. What it does do is give those that have been discriminated against legal recourse if they lose their job or homes due to discrimination. To say the law isn't necessary to protect people of ALL sexual orientations, is to say the law isn't necessary to protect ALL races, religions, genders, etc…
Bigotry takes many different forms, it's not always about not getting a job, not getting a home, or not getting credit. It is sometimes about losing a job, your home or credit. Religion is the perfect example because it may not be readily obvious at first glance (and it really IS a choice, unlike sexual orientation).
Let say you have a great tenant. They are quite, pay their rent on time, never have any complaints, willing to take care of little things around the property without asking to be reimbursed or bothering you with it. Then one day, you see your tenant going door to door handing out literature to the neighborhood. Curious, you ask him what he is doing and come to find out he's a Seventh Day Adventist. Like a lot of “good” Christians you believe that Seventh Day Adventists are evil and you don't want to rent to their kind. Now, the law in this case gives the tenant some recourse, because it would be hard for the landlord to prove that the eviction wasn't due to the tenant's religion. However, given the same circumstance, and instead of handing out religious material, you witness your same sex tenants kissing in a non “roommate” sort of way saying good bye. Well you don't want to rent to their kind and the law does nothing to stop you. You can evict them. If one of them works for you, you can fire them even though they did nothing inappropriate on the job. If you're a credit officer and you see the same thing, you can throw the application in the trash without concern. If anyone questions your decision all you have to say is that you don't make loans, hire, promote, rent to, sell to “that” kind. Even if they may be a part of some other “protected” class, it doesn't matter because you are free to treat ANYONE as you please based on their sexual orientation, even if they are heterosexual.
It's not *entirely* the same thing, because it's much easier to descriminate
against someone for their race or their sex or their disability because
those things are extremely visible, and impossible to not notice. I'm not
saying gay people should have to hide the fact that they're gay, necesarily,
just that it's a lot easier for a racist to pick up on the fact that
someone's black than it is for a homophobe to pick up on the fact that
someone's homosexual. Unless, of course, the gay person in question is
announcing that fact to any and every person in hearing range, in which case
he's being an annoying prat who deserves to get canned because he's going
out of his way to make the rest of the staff uncomfortable for no reason at
all. Er, for applying for a line of credit that argument is a great deal
weaker, yes. Granted, having the legal recourse to pursue those who
descriminate is nice, but in the real world I'm finding it hard to see how
such a case could be won by the gay person. Unless an employer or a
homeowner or a credit union employee blatantly says, *in writing* or in
front of *friendly* witnesses, that you're not accepted due to gayness, I
don't know how anyone could prove in a court of law that descrimination took
place.
I haven't reviewed the ordinence in question, so I could be wrong. However.
I was under the impression that it only covered hiring for a job or applying
for a credit or apartment; not to being fired from a job you've already held
for a while or being evicted. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand.
The definition used in the municipal code is as follows:
“Discrimination means any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal or denial or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status or physical or mental disability, or the aiding, abetting, inciting, coercing or compelling thereof.”
Sexual orientation would be added to the list of protected classes.
I've made the ordinance available for download here
Interesting post. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.
You are absolutely right here Bob. We must guarantee everyone equal protection of the law. If we begin to systematically select who we protect we risk the failure of our entire system. This would allow would be dictators like George W. Bush to try to muscle their way into positions of power. The result of which would be the enslaving of the rest of the proletariat into serfdom.
You are true about that: there are several types of hemp and some don't have THC concentration near the level where it could be called a drug. Some things just need to change, but as that doesn't mean I agree with any kind of legal drug.
_______________________________________________________________
Drug treatment center in Los Angeles
Alcohol, Tobacco and Pharmaceutical Drugs all do much more harm to the
body and society as a whole. There aren't any good, legitimate
reasons for Marijuana being illegal.
thanks for the information what u hav provided, it's really nice
palin is a real dope and will show this every day.
talk away lady.
Emperor Bob, Twitter defender
I've read your BIO bob, and I see you want change for the better as well,
My history bob spanned from 1977 to present, from the JDL to the US Army to civilian life.
Bob, respectfully speaking, don't even attempt to lecture me on this subject. I have seen shit that would turn you the opposite color of what you are now. I served 12 years in some of the worst shit holes in the world so people like YOU could have an opinion. I did mine, what did you do ?
In the last 12 months this man has lied to the people of this country, apologized for our
presence in the world and wants to back us down to a 3rd world power if it were up to him
and his staff this socialistic move would have taken place back in the early 90's, Bob, make no mistake my friend, my family has always been in politics as far back as
I can remember, I have pictures of my Gma with presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the 1st Bush,
My aunt had worked for the military in S4 operations, so when you ask me what he has done to me personaly,
Take a look around Bob, this is not the same country and as a citizen, anything he does is for me or against me as a president has repercussions.
Bob, I have friends in Afghanistan, and they are not getting help, They did not go willingly, they were ordered, and with no help or reserves, They Die Bob, and that bothers the Hell out of me, maybe you would understand me alot more if you had someone that was sent by a president and this government to a battle with no help.
Remember the US Cole, how about Somalia, my best friend died in that bul—it.but that was Clinton,sorry bag of pus.
Look at his exposure to catching terrorist here in the US….No Word from him Personaly, what do you make of that.
I am not opposed to war bob, it is necesary during times of our history, but for Gods Sake, have a concience as a leader.
If you want to know more about me and what I beleive,I beleive in God, Country, Family,- you need to do your research.
I do not judge you Bob, just listen and try and understand, I do beleive we are all confused by this president and his agenda, even you bob.
Just so you know, I chose to come to your site because I would crash on twitter trying to get that out.
and agree that we disagree.
Respectfully,
Chimneyash
Oh by the way, You owe me 1 chicken Your Hinnyness
First and foremost, thank you for your service to our country. I also appreciate you coming to my site to share your views.
You refer to your service that allowed people like me could express our opinion and asked what I've done. I enlisted in the Air Force but my tour was abbreviated due to an injury while on duty. I never served overseas, nor was I ever put in harms way, but I did volunteer.
Both sides of my family have served honorably for three generations. I was born in the Naval Hospital in San Diego. My brother has served in Iraq and will may be sent to Afghanistan in the next year. I have two nephews in Iraq now. I also know several families here in Alaska that have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't need to lecture me on the sacrifices our brave men and women, and their families make in service to our country.
Our President ordered 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan back in February. Should additional troops be sent? I don't know, I haven't sat in on the briefings or strategy sessions. Have you? I'm not going to second guess the Commander In Chief. The war against terrorists isn't like going to war against a country. It's not just a military effort, it's a political, economic and diplomatic battle as well.
You make a lot of accusations against President Obama, from lying to being a socialist. I also note that your family history in politics has been Republican. I have to believe that your criticism is at the very least influenced by, if not dictated by your political affiliation.
You're right about one thing, this isn't the same country. What you don't say however is this isn't the same world either. Bush nearly bankrupted our country and ruined our reputation around the world. Even our most staunchest allies stepped away from standing by our side. Much of what President Obama is doing now is rebuilding what Bush destroyed at home and abroad. Let's not forget that the bailouts started with Bush.
You are free to believe in whatever you choose, including God. But so am I, and we are a secular country. So much evil has been done in the name of religions throughout history. If there is a God, I refuse to believe that God would choose sides in a war or would want followers to kill or die in its name. I am wiling to kill or die for my family, country and the principles of freedom and liberty, but would never in the name of religious beliefs. I truly believe that our world would be better off and safer without any and all religion.
I'm not confused by President Obama. I understand what he is doing and why. Whether or not he is successful in those efforts and it improves the lives of Americans is yet to be determined. Regardless, I won't have my vision of our future dictated by those that spread irrational fear and unconscionable hatred.
Thanks again for your time and sharing your views.
Very well spoken Bob,
Given a bad situation with our support for the best outcome,
Even though we have differing views, I would still share a foxhole with you and yes,
Pass the chex mix and Ammo, -.
We are in a wait and see Bob, Hopefully we get a fair deal with our government
and maybe we wont have to be proved wrong for beleiving one can do the job.
I cormemorate your service and think everyone should pull a couple of years.
Maybe soon, you and I can coorespond about what experiances we have had in our own country that would defy logic.
I support your view and stand with you on your convictions.
But also stand on my experiance.
Have a wonderful week,
Talk later.
Chimneyash
PS. What do you think about ACORN?
Trust me, if it came down to it I would be seeking our your fox hole to fight at your side.
I think we averted certain disaster by not electing McCain. He was clearly intent on continuing the disastrous course that Bush set us on. We desperately needed a change of course, and I hope we didn't jump out the frying pan and into the fire with electing Obama. It's an uncertain world, but I believe in the USA and our President.
I go to the VA hospital in Seattle once a year to see the doctors there. Each time I go I am humbled by the experience of meeting brave men and women not only from our current wars, but prior ones as well. It's why I don't talk much about my time in service, because in comparison it's little more than not serving at all.
I agree that everyone should serve our country in some capacity, at some point. But I recognize that the military is not for everyone, for a variety of reasons. There are many ways that anyone can serve however. Serve.Gov
To tell you the the truth I'm not sure what to make about ACORN. Most of what I've read reveals individual infractions and abuses. I'm not convinced that they are a corrupt organization. The trouble is Fox News. I don't believe ANYTHING they report. If they reported the sun was certain to rise tomorrow, I would be more likely to believe the end of the world is at hand. Fox News IS a corrupt organization, and much more dangerous than either ACORN or SEIU in my opinion. Fox news doesn't just report news, they manufacture it for the purpose of entertainment and ratings.
My sincere hope is that no matter what happens, Americans will come together rather than turn against one another in violence. There has been more hate, distrust, and animosity among Americans in the past year than I can remember since the tumultuous 60's.
So take care and be well. Best wishes to you and yours for good health and prosperity.
Dear Emperor Bob,
I'm not writing to be clever, contradictory or in hostile misunderstanding.
After reading you Rant, it's the last paragraph I would like to discuss. I't is also my sincere hope that we can come together as a people behind this adminstration.
I have also noticed the “animosity among Americans” and am reminded of the 60's. Having lived through them as obviously you have, I feel it again in the way this country is being divided. News takes over and forms the peoples opinion to thiers. Not reporting to news but practicly (or in some cases lirerally) brain washing them. I watched Fox News Greta Van Sustren, in particular, to try to give the other side a chance. I like to know both sides of an argument before I make up my mind (therapist says I want every side) about important issues. She used the word stupid over 20 times in half an hour. I started counting only after she had said it numerious times. And the way she used it. Don't be stupid and think like this. You would only believe this if you were stupid. what does the Government think you are stupid.
I was facinated. I could see an audience of people around thier TV's wanting to be smart. Wanting to listen to this woman so through her, they would be informed, intellegent citizens. And it was bulls**t. But it was also effective to those who get there news from a single source. I've seen it work on people I know. I can't talk to some of my own friends anymore. Politics has broken some of those friendships Even though I tried to avoid the subject, It always came up and arguments ensued.
So I watched others on Fox (On recommendation from friends) and could not believe my eyes and ears. Glenn Beck crying, Bill O'Reilley and Hannity. The am show with the blonde bombshells. Now I know why my male friends watched it! I couldnt figure where they got thier opinions. I also counld not understand why anyone of reasonable intellegence would believe any of it.
I think they got many with one word, brilliantly done. Stupid.
A short mention about the the children that are supposed to be leaders of this great nation, making a spectule of themselves on a regular basis. And this is on both sides. What an example for us kiddies eh? No need to go on, we have all see it.
Add all this up. 2 wars, slpit government, split nation. Yes it's the 60's again. There are even militant groups on twitter! I feel it brewing out there and I wish our leaders did. I call, e-mail, but am just one person. One voice. But that is all that I can do. Keep calling, e-mailing and filling out protest forms.
It's the 60's again, but it's backwards and it feels more violent.
I was raised in Ferndale Michigan, One mile outside of Detroit. I remember the riots the fear and the feeling that thing were never going to be the same again. This feels worse.
I don't fear for me. I can take care of myself, (all Detroiters are killers, don't ya know!) but fear a momentum of hostility that is being ignored. Stuff like that has a habit of going boom!
I wrote this because you noticed it too. And because you seem a wise person. An this is a good forum to discuss it.
Thanks for having this space!
Sincereley
Denise Tenny
aka mocephus
Dear Emperor Bob,
I got a little pissed the other day when reading the new statistics on deaths related to lack of healthcare in America. I got this back in personal e-mial today. I am not exactly sure what “Mitch” means re: hope if gets published but at least it was noticed. Thought I'd share it.
Let me know, did I go too far?
@moecephus on twitter
Thank you for writing a letter to the editor.
By speaking up, you’ll help shape pubic opinion in your community and ensure that health insurance reform becomes a reality in 2009.
If your story gets published, we’d love to hear about it. Please let us know here:
http://my.barackobama.com/ltereport
Thank,
Mitch
Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
From Denise Tenny
To Detroit Free Press, The Washington Post, New York Times
Subject Health care reform can not WAIT
Message Sirs/Mame's
Sorry for use of cap's but need you to hear this.
45,000 of us are dying a year because you want/think you have to play polictic's
Fortunately for us a few of you are actually concerned about this simple fact that should have you all racing to push the for/yes button.
45,000 Americans are dying a year. If terrorist were killing that many of us, what would you do?
Your inaction/Obstruction is killing people.
Is your (anyone of you) job worth 45,000 dead Americans? You play the election game on dead bodies. The press is no better. Humming in agreement that certian of you cannot champion health care reform because you may lose your seat.
WE don't care about your seat. We care about 45,000 of our fellow Americans who last year, gave up thier lives for you to stay where you are. Comfortable in your job,
For God's sake 45k isin't a statistic, it is 45,000 American dead that we could have prevented.
You should all be angry about this. You sould be prepared to give us what we need regardless if you return to Congress or the Senate again. Americans make sacrifices every day for this country. What about you?
Get Health Care done. Quit killing your own people.
It is just that simple
Sincerely
Denise A Tenny
when you say those people are evil, sad thing is all they see is they are being great capitalist Americans,it's the way to do things,they started so long ago and each generation of fat cat sipping off the excess more like leeches but they don't see themselves that way,sad and lame as that is what is even more puzzling is the way our reps are there to rep US citizen anymore,they seem only to care 1 keeping their but in their seat or what job they get next like its a stepping stone to bigger and better things.I know there are positive lobbyists out there but thy are far outnumbered by those that abuse and use the system for their personal gain. I dont see how Obama can possibly fix this system but I am glad at least to hear from someone in charge that they actually see the problem and want to fix it,can only be a positive ,ok theres my 2 cents
Emperor What makes it worse the supreme cort case to be heard re Corporations being recognized as a person I ask for info from a law library and the following is what i recieve. Apologies for the lenght of it.
Moecephus
Hi Denise,
Here are some links that should help:
Gives the history of the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personho...
This is the current Supreme Court case:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citiz...
Here is some extraneous information: Group challenges corporate personhood in Supreme Court
Posted by mcm
August 24, 2009
Corporate Personhood Challenged in Supreme Court
On August 1st Democracy Unlimited filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging
“corporate personhood,” the illegitimate and undemocratic legal doctrine which allows courts
to overturn democratically elected laws that attempt to control corporate harm and abuse.
Democracy Unlimited joined the Program on Corporations Law & Democracy, the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Shays2: The Western Massachusetts Committee
on Corporations & Democracy, and the Clements Foundation in making the legal argument.
The brief was drafted and filed by attorney Jeff Clements, who represented all five organizations
in the matter.
The groups filed the brief in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, urging
the Supreme Court not to overturn laws preventing corporations from making political contributions in federal elections. The amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief argues that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as people. As such, democratically enacted regulations of corporations do not violate the Constitution's guarantee of free speech.
“The notion that corporations have the same speech rights as people under our Bill of Rights is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” said Clements. “The organizations that joined to bring these arguments to the Court have worked with others for
many years to empower democratic self-government. They remind us that corporations do
not vote, speak, or act as people do, but are products of government policy to achieve economic
and charitable ends. As such, corporations need not be allowed to influence our elections if
Congress and State governments judge that such influence is detrimental to democracy.”
The Supreme Court is considering overturning federal campaign regulations for corporations, originally enacted in 1907, and may soon overrule previous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the Constitutionality of legislative restrictions on corporate money in politics.
The case now before the Court began when a tax-exempt non-profit corporation calling itself
Citizens United challenged the Constitutionality of a federal ban on expenditures for
“electioneering communications” by corporations and labor unions within sixty days of an
election. The ban is part of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Under the
Act, corporations and labor unions may still contribute to Political Action Committees.
Citizens United argued that the restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated
the Constitution as applied to the corporation that sought to distribute an anti-Hillary Clinton
movie during the 2008 presidential primaries. A panel of three federal district court judges upheld
the regulation of corporate expenditures, and agreed that the Federal Election Commission could enforce the law. The District Court relied on a 2003 Supreme Court case, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that had ruled that the corporate expenditure regulation did not violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court overrules Austin and McConnell, First Amendment rights claimed by corporations will be significantly expanded, and local, state, and federal governments will be
further restricted in the ability to regulate corporations and corporate influence on our democratic processes.
The brief filed by Democracy Unlimited argues that corporations are legal entities created by state
or federal law for economic, charitable or other purposes, and were never intended to be included within the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
The brief also highlights the fact that the doctrine that corporations are “persons” under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is doubtful, and an activist
federal judiciary should not intervene to prevent elected officials from protecting the integrity of
the electoral process.
The Supreme Court will hear further argument in the case in September.
A copy of the amicus brief can be read here: http://www.clementsllc.com .
This is one of those “If I was Emperor for a day” type of thing. It's real simple. If you can't vote for the candidate or issue, you can't donate or campaign. That goes for every organization of any type including political parties.
Agreed. What makes it more interesting is original law was due to court recorders mistake/intensional error?
Most hemp simply has hardly a trace of thc. Legalize hemp. C'mon gov.
Wow – what a great and reasoned blog. I am a 75 year old Canadian woman and while I love Americans I have seldom found I could have a deep conversation with them. We always hit a wall of “exceptionalism”, “socialism” or “god”. Happy to know you and I will be reading and thinking as I read.
Betty in Toronto. BettyPaints in Twitter.