Posted by Congress Watcher on July 3, 2008 at 11:47 am · Filed under Personalities, Senate legislation
Another day has gone by in which Barack Obama has refused to address the concerns that a growing number of his supporters have expressed about the FISA Amendments Act, which Obama says he will vote for on Tuesday.
There’s a reassuring competence in the people protesting Obama’s support for the FISA Amendments Act. Take, for example, the comments below from Byron, a voter in Tucson, Arizona. Byron sees right through Obama’s claim that he must support the FISA Amendments Act in order to prevent the Protect America Act. Byron has the intelligence to remember that last summer, Barack Obama voted against the Protect America Act, and rightly so, because it has been an extremely abusive law.
Furthermore, Byron recognizes that Barack Obama’s move away from protecting the Constitution isn’t even the most pragmatic approach to earning the votes of wayward Republicans. Republican voters, after all, distrust Big Government. Why would they be convinced to vote for Obama with Obama’s support for a Big Government spying program?
Thanks for thinking for yourself, Byron. We need more thoughtful, informed citizens like you.
Here’s what Byron wrote to Barack Obama:
“Your support of FISA is a bellweather of things to come. It would be so easy to run against this bill: “Big government wants to wiretap your phone and email, with only a “trust us”. This is as unacceptable as gun registration. When I voted against this bill, I voted for freedom.” You want republican swing voters? That is the way to do it. Be strong. Instead you choose to flip flop from voting against the PAA (which we now can’t allow to expire?), statements of filibuster support, to now embracing a “better bad bill”. It is hard to remain much of a supporter and my wife and I certainly won’t be donating money or volunteering time to assist your campaign of triangulation.”
Posted by Congress Watcher on July 2, 2008 at 11:34 am · Filed under Personalities, Senate legislation
Barack Obama shocked his supporters last month by declaring his support for George W. Bush’s Orwellian program of spying against millions of Americans, codified and retroactively legalized by the FISA Amendments Act. It’s not too late for Barack Obama to change his mind, however. The Senate vote on the FISA Amendments Act is scheduled for next Tuesday, July 8.
With that in mind, a large number of Barack Obama’s supporters have organized a group urging Obama to keep his original promise, and vote against the FISA Amendments Act. As of this moment, the group is just 26 people short of having ten thousand members.
The members of this group against the FISA Amendments Act are willing to put their money where their mouths are. One member, David Fagelson from Pennsylvania, writes of Obama, “Apart from being such a gross assault on the constitution, it is an assault on the rule of law itself. If ever there was a time that he should have taken a principled stand, it was on this.” Fagelson continues,
“I am reluctantly diverting all the money I had earmarked for the Obama campaign in order to address a more urgent matter: stopping the FISA bill. This legislation undermines the rule of law, let alone the constitution and I deem it more important to stop or reverse that pernicious legislation than giving to Obama.”
Consider that Pennsylvania is a swing state, and you start to see the serious threat that Obama’s support of the FISA Amendements Act has become. Obama activists in swing states are one by one dropping out of his campaign, withholding their money and refusing to volunteer their time. Consider that these are the people who Obama had counted on to form the foundation of his campaign.
If Barack Obama has not heard the message of these pro-Constitution activists, it is because he doesn’t want to listen to anyone but professional campaign consultants anymore. Mr. Obama, it’s time for you to break out of your bubble.
Please, listen to your supporters. Keep the promise you made back in February. Vote against the FISA Amendments Act!
Update: In just the few minutes since I wrote this article, the number of members of the group against the FISA Amendments Act on the Obama web site has shot up to ten thousand eighty.
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 25, 2008 at 7:49 am · Filed under All Articles, Personalities, campaign gear
In Houston and Waco, Texas, local Democrats are all in a flutter about a comment that Nancy Pelosi made in an interview with Newsweek magazine that Chet Edwards would be a great vice presidential pick for Barack Obama. Edwards is a Congressman who represents Waco in the House of Representatives.
The idea is absurd, which means, of course, that it just might happen.
Chet Edwards is just the kind of Democrat who could turn other Democrats off, and keep them from showing up to vote on Election Day if he is picked for Vice President. In the Progressive Patriots legislative scorecard, Chet Edwards has a right wing score as high as his progressive score. Chet Edwards has voted for almost every bad idea that George W. Bush ever proposed to the U.S. Congress.
I found a bumper sticker - political button set that expresses the problem with Chet Edwards perfectly. It tickles me with its way of expressing political dissatisfaction in a relatively folsky way, so I thought I’d share it with you: Chet Edwards is a Democrat like a catfish is a cat - in other words, Chet Edwards is a Democrat in name only.
California Blue State Bumper Sticker
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 23, 2008 at 10:34 pm · Filed under Personalities, Podcasts
Bizarre is the world of North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx, a member of the kooky fringe of the U.S. House of Representatives. Last week, Congresswoman Foxx took to the floor of the House to announce that: “What is a problem are high gas prices brought to us by a failed Democratically controlled Congress, failed Democratically controlled Congress, a do-nothing-to-reduce-gas-prices Democratically controlled Congress!”
The Democratically-controlled Congress is to blame for his gasoline prices? Let’s consider the basis for that statement.
Oil prices started rising around 2001 - with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. They continued to rise, doubling in just a few years - with the Republicans in control of Congress.
Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since the beginning of 2007 - just under one and a half years.
How is it that Virginia Foxx believes that the Democratic majority in Congress managed to cause the price of crude oil to rise years before it actually came into being?
Representative Foxx never explained that. She just marched back to her seat, proud of firing off a volley in service of the big oil corporations.
Our latest podcast begins with this story of Virginia Foxx and continues with a courageous speech given by Representative Earl Blumenauer about the despicable FISA Amendments Act.
Posted by Congressional Aid on June 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm · Filed under All Articles, House legislation, Personalities
Just before he voted on June 20, 2008 for H.R. 6304, legislation that guts the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Republican Representative Randy Forbes of Virginia took to the floor of the House to identify the real problem with America.
What, pray tell, is the real problem with America? Could it be members of Congress who swear a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, then turn around and vote for bills that undercut that same Constitution?
No, no. For Randy Forbes, the problem is the Constitution itself. It’s not just that Randy Forbes disrespects the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. He has a problem with the First Amendment. The real problem with America, according to Randy Forbes, is that people are speaking their minds:
Today, when the sun comes up on America, there are all too many people who spend all too much time criticizing and apologizing for this nation, trying to verbally tear it down.
In Randy Forbes’ America, everything would be hunky dory if everyone only used their right to free speech to praise America, if everyone only used their right to free speech to agree with what America’s leadership is doing, if everyone only used their free speech they way Randy Forbes would like. In other words, Randy Forbes is only willing to support free speech as long as it isn’t free at all.
Well I tell you what, Representative Forbes: you can have my free speech right after you kiss my assignation of liberty with the individual goodbye. It’s locked firmly in my mind, and I simply can’t recall where I placed the key.
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 21, 2008 at 6:28 am · Filed under House legislation, Personalities, Podcasts, Senate legislation
On Friday, we warned you about the impending vote on H.R. 6304 - the FISA Amendments Act. The FISA Amendments Act
- Allows physical searches of Americans homes and businesses without any search warrant or other evidence of a suspected crime.
- Allows George W. Bush to conduct massive widespread electronic spying against American citizens as they talk on the telephone, use the web, read email, and travel with GPS devices
- Gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations that broke the law by helping George W. Bush spy against millions of Americans in secret
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which clearly forbids all such surveillance, is no longer in effect. The Bill of Rights is in tatters.
The first piece of bad news we gave you is that 105 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives betrayed their constituents and the Constitution - they voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act.
Now we have even worse news: Barack Obama says that he will vote to support this attack on the Constitution when it comes up for a vote in the United States Senate next week. Furthermore, Obama pledged that he would keep the unconstitutional spying program against Americans going on if he is elected President. That’s exactly the opposite position that Barack Obama took during the primaries.
Barack Obama flip flops on the Constitution. I never thought I would see the day.
This is the theme of our downcast second podcast - and Barack Obama’s campaign should take note. It doesn’t matter if you carry the name of Democrat. You attack the freedoms guaranteed America in the Constitution, you lose our support.
Kansas for Edwards 2008 discount 10 pack
Posted by Congressional Aid on June 20, 2008 at 3:34 pm · Filed under All Articles, House legislation, Personalities
The following are the remarks of Democratic Representative Bobby Scott regarding H.R. 6304, the bill to nullify the Fourth Amendment rights of those living under American jurisdiction. Representative Scott of Virginia rose in opposition on the morning of June 20, 2008, just before H.R. 6304 was passed:
I oppose H.R. 6304. It allows widespread acquisition of private conversations without adequate court review. The bill actually permits the government to perform mass untargeted surveillance of any and all conversations believed to be coming into and out of the United States without any individualized finding and without a requirement that wrongdoing is believed to be involved at all. It is not limited to just terrorism; it could be any foreign intelligence which would include diplomacy and everything else.
It is vague on what can be done with the information after it is acquired, and who has access to it, and the only court review is a check on whether the government certifies that the process has been followed. The court does not review for who, what and where the tapping will take place.
Furthermore, the collection of all this data can be done under emergency provisions before the court acts, but the collection can continue to be done even if the court rejects the application if the administration appeals. The bill also provides retroactive immunity to communications companies who have violated people’s rights, and whether or not those rights have been violated should be reviewed by the courts, not decided here by the Congress.
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 18, 2008 at 9:10 am · Filed under Personalities
There are politicians in Congress who understand the gravity of the ecological crisis we are facing in our planet’s oceans, and those who seem completely unaware of the problem. In the latter category we find Representative Lois Capps, who speaks for communities like Pismo Beach and Oceano in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Recently, Congresswoman Capps took to the floor of the House of Representatives to remind America about the growing problems caused by neglect of oceans policy. She said,
“This year’s summit marked the 10-year anniversary of the Year of the Ocean and the oceans conference in Monterey attended by President Clinton and Vice President Gore. In the intervening 10 years, the Federal Government has done little to address the oceans’ growing problems, ranging from overfishing to pollution to coastal development and global warming. California and Massachusetts have had to step into the breach, but problems as big as our oceans can’t be addressed by a few States.”
In the category of the unaware stands Senator John McCain. As fish populations dwindle, as coral reefs bleach white, as jellyfish populations surge and dead zones expand, John McCain proposes something to make the oceans’ problems even worse by expanding oil drilling in the coastal waters of the USA.
Coastal oil drilling won’t solve America’s current energy crisis. The amount of petroleum that could be obtained through new drilling is insignificant compared to the amount of oil America burns through in even a single day. Yet, the increased risk of environmental destruction through oil spills is not at all insignificant.
It will do America little good to have a few more barrels of petroleum if our oceans are so fouled that we cannot find enough edible seafood along our coasts. John McCain either doesn’t understand that or he just doesn’t care.
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 17, 2008 at 12:41 pm · Filed under House legislation, Personalities
Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert represents the 1st congressional district of Texas in the House of Representatives. That district includes the town of Center, Texas. If you look for Center at the center of Texas, however, you’ll be looking in the wrong place. Center is the kind of place that’s actually pretty far from Center, even for Texas. Representative Gohmert’s district is on the eastern edge of Texas, in the rural backwater territory across the Louisiana border from Shreveport, where corruption is king. It’s nobody’s destination, and it isn’t even on the way to anyplace.
In other words, Louie Gohmert is the Representative of Texas wahoos, and boy does he act like it.
About six months ago, Congressman Gohmert got his dander up about people who try to resist the will f the big oil corporations of Texas. Nothing bothers Gohmert more than when someone says no to big Texas oil.
You see, some of those big Texas oil companies got it into their heads to go marching off into some other state and drill for oil on public lands, in wildlife sanctuaries, even if they weren’t wanted by the local people. So, some members of Congress spoke out and tried to defend their home districts from the Texas oil onslaught.
That got Louie Gohmert spitting mad, so he had his aides sit down and write a piece of legislation that would forbid states from importing any gasoline at all if they didn’t give in to the drilling demands of the Texas oil companies. Under Gohmert’s proposed law, if the people Missouri had a piece of wilderness where they didn’t want oil drilling, and Texas oil companies came and demanded oil drilling rights, the people of Missouri have to agree to the demands of Texas, or else forfeit the right to get any gasoline from outside its borders.
Gohmert’s bill, H.R.4893, would have created a system of economic sanctions within the United States, from one state against another, and all for the benefit of big oil corporations in states like Texas. Gohmert’s proposed law would have crushed any state that defied the will of the oil giants of Texas. Louie Gohmert’s legislation would have triggered a new civil war in the United States of America, this one a war over oil.
That was six months ago, and Louie Gohmert thought he would make a big wave in the congressional pond, threatening other members of the House with the weight of big Texas oil. Gohmert got it wrong, thank goodness. In all these months, Gohmert hasn’t been able to convince even one other member of Congress to cosponsor his kooky little bill - not even any other Republicans have signed on.
Nowadays, thanks to his little big oil tantrum, when Louie Gohmert comes walking through the halls of Congress, people tend to avert their eyes or just walk the other way, hoping that Gohmert doesn’t try to talk to them. Congressman Gohmert doesn’t seem to mind, though. He’s Representative of the Wahoos of East Texas, and that seems to be enough for him.
Replace Rogers Bumper Sticker
Posted by Congress Watcher on June 14, 2008 at 10:26 am · Filed under Personalities
This week, Texas Congressman Ted Poe gave what he thought was a very clever little speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Poe blasted progressives who seek to defend the wilderness of a few protected ares from oil drilling operations, saying,
“Madam Speaker, the anti-crude oil crowd has an ethical dilemma. You see, they don’t want to drill for crude in Alaska, they don’t want to drill offshore, especially off that sacred west coast. They don’t want any refineries to produce that crude into products. They are just against all this nonsense. After all, they say, crude is the demon of the Earth.
However, they don’t have a problem with using everything that comes from crude, like gasoline that comes from crude off the Texas east coast, refined in American refineries. And it seems to me that the irrational non-drillers should lead by example, rather than being hypocritical by preaching damnation to crude oil, but using its by-products every day. So no more plastic water bottles, no using insecticides, no more fertilizer, medicine, candles, nylon, paint, makeup, perfume, computers or detergents. No more car rides or plane rides, and no more home heating oil come winter. After all, all of these things come from crude oil.
The radical don’t-drill folks should literally walk the walk, instead of talking the big talk about how they are going to save us all from that demon crude oil, but sanctimoniously use its products every day. And that’s just the way it is.”
Of course, that’s not quite the way it is. Progressives don’t say that there should be no oil drilling. They just say that there should a few small protected areas of wilderness where oil drilling does not take place.
What Ted Poe is calling for in this speech, although he does it sarcastically, is energy conservation. If Congressman Poe had bothered to think before he spoke, he would have realized that the progressives he criticizes with actually do exactly what he suggests they should do. Progressives support energy conservation.
Conservation is not the radical scheme Ted Poe describes. Instead, Conservation is the definition of moderation. Conservation means using fewer resources, finding an efficient and sustainable manner of living. Conservation does not mean using no resources at all, as would take place in Representative Poe’s radical vision.
Progressives have supported energy conservation for generations, and for generations, Republican politicians like Ted Poe have blocked conservation.
Congressman Ted Poe accuses progressive conservationists of not walking the walk, but what about Ted Poe himself? Does Poe walk the walk? Does Poe support conservation?
Nope. Even as he yells at other Americans for not conserving enough, Congressman Poe himself has voted against conservation over and over again.
In recent votes, Ted Poe:
- voted against conservation in transportation
- voted against energy conservation in public schools
- voted against energy conserving light bulbs
That’s just a sampling of Ted Poe’s votes against the conservation he says people ought to be taking place. Progressives are trying to enact conservation measures in Congress, but Ted Poe keeps trying to block them.
It’s Ted Poe who doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to energy.
Besides that, Congressman Poe isn’t even accurate what he says about the need to open more federal lands for oil drilling. Congressman David Wu points out that oil companies have failed to use 71.5 percent of the oil drilling leases already available to them on federal lands.
If Big Oil isn’t even using the federal lands already open to drilling, why should we open up even more tracts of wilderness to them?
Next entries »
| | | 
