• Home
• Energy
• Taxes
• Local Issues
• Illegal Immigration
• Health Care

Subscribe

DOJ is a DOG

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4266609&w=400&h=249

Lynn Woolsey’s Arrogance Shows Again

Hey, Lynn! The Marin taxpayers own half the Golden Gate Bridge if anyone does. Our tolls keep it open! – FedUpEditor

I am Lynn Woolsey, congresswoman from Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, which means that I own half of the Golden Gate Bridge, so that makes me perfectly situated to talk about poor people, right? No, but I am perfectly prepared because I was one, a person in need of a lot of the discussion that you have in your volume that I am going to participate in and I was honored to be able to contribute to the volume about how culture shapes the way people in poverty live. I mean, we have to think about that, don’t we? What a concept. Values, norms, beliefs play very important roles in the way people meet the challenges of poverty, and as one of the essays in your volume illustrates, they also play important roles in shaping how lawmakers choose to address poverty issues. And it is a shame, a lot of people that make these decisions around here have never lived through anything but a really comfortable, easy life. But you know what? There are also a lot of members, even though they have not, that they get the picture. Our speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is one; I mean, she has had a very nice life. She understands and she cares very much about people who have less. So you do not have to have lived the life that I went through with my children at one point when we were on welfare to really get the picture. But, unfortunately, too many don’t and you can see it when all of a sudden the light goes on because they have got a grandchild with a disease, diabetes let us say, or something that they are facing – oh my goodness, this does happen. I am going on about my colleagues, but it is very important that even if they have not lived through something that you help them see and this volume that I participated in I hope they will read. The lesson I take from all of this is that those of us in Congress must constantly re-examine the way we frame problems on Capitol Hill. We have to see if we are keeping up with the changing reality on the ground.

In my commentary, I examined one area where lawmakers’ thinking and legislating has not kept pace at all, and that is the relationship between work and family. We are just starting to talk about that now, but it has been clear for many years now that the typical American family has changed. We used to be a nation of predominantly nuclear families, complete with one breadwinner, usually the male, and one at-home, full-time parent, 99.9 percent the female, home with the children, after school, what a nice way to live, Ozzie and Harriet. For the first time in history now women make up one-half of the workforce. Today four in five families with children still at home do not consist of the traditional male worker and the female homemaker. In addition, nearly four in ten mothers are primary breadwinners – primary breadwinners – for their families, while nearly two-thirds are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, bringing home at least a quarter of their family’s earnings. While there is a growing cultural awareness of this change, the laws governing work-life balance have not kept up. In fact, our country, the wealthiest country on this globe, ranks at the bottom of industrialized nations when it comes to such issues as paid sick and maternal and paternal leave, access to affordable childcare, policies that promote flexible workplaces. Lawmakers have been slow to recognize that the traditional distinctions between home and work and between sole breadwinner and stay-at-home mom have collapsed. The worlds of work and home have become interdependent and our legislation needs to reflect this. I mean, we have a society-and we are very responsible for that as legislators-we have a society where if a child is lucky enough to have two parents, both of those parents are in the workforce, not always but usually, and if the child has one parent, that parent certainly is in the workforce. So we need steps to integrate our laws in a more holistic way of seeing the relationship between family and work. Most notably, the Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA] with its provisions for unpaid, protected leave. A bill I have introduced and reintroduced and reintroduced, called The Balancing Act, will carry us much further in the direction we need to go. It is comprehensive legislation, it is a package that includes bills introduced by other members of Congress; it is an omnibus bill, it is huge. And when I talk in front of Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs I watch the women business people at it, I watch the older businessmen – this is a surprise – who have daughters and in the workforce now-get it, and then there is the group in between who say, “Well, Congresswoman, this is all very nice but we cannot afford it,” and all I say is we cannot afford not to do this. Figure it out. The Balancing Act would provide paid family medical leave for workers to care for family members – so that they can bond with new children at the birth, and then not just the mother, the father too – or for recovering from an illness or helping a parent, there is this sandwich generation, I am looking around at you, a lot of you in this room are going to be taking care of your parents as well as taking care of children. So we would expand FMLA to cover more workers, to provide leave for children’s extracurricular activities, to allow workers time to cope with the effects of domestic violence. I mean right now, domestic violence – you do not get paid time off or you do not get protected if you have to take time off from your job. So the package also provides grants to build childcare centers and for schools to offer hot breakfasts, as well as to expand before- and after-school activities, and for voluntary universal preschool – so you can see it is huge. It has provisions to give part-time workers benefits – what a concept – and the bill would also encourage employers to allow their employees to telecommute and it supports flexible work schedules. There are other bills that recognize the new reality for American families, including efforts to permit employees to request flexible hours, expand the Family Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners, and allow breast-feeding in the workplace. The fact that these bills have been introduced shows that more and more lawmakers are recognizing the new reality of the American family. The fact that none of these bills has passed shows that we still have a very, very long way to go. So your efforts here are not wasted on most of us; it will be good I think to make sure that we get that out to all members of the House and the Senate so they cannot pretend like they have not seen it and it will not be the first time they have heard about these issues but maybe they can concentrate on one or two of them. And staff, staff are very important, so make sure that legislative staff know that you have put together this wonderful, wonderful piece of work. So, I thank you all. I do not know if you want questions and answers or for me to just go away, I will do whatever you want.

Editor’s note: Remember, Democrats have been working on poverty since before FDR and have not solved the problem yet. As long as Woolsey thinks she can keep her job talking about solving the problem, she’ll appease everyone. Jim Judd, on the other hand, is a business man who has actually created jobs and wealth in his community of Cotati instead of talking about it. A vote for him will go a long way to putting Woolsey out to pasture where she belongs!

California Legislators Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein Wealthiest Lawmakers in Washington…

Kind of makes you wonder why they want to tax the rich although they are not giving up THEIR money! Democrat voters are stupid to believe these lying liars! – Editor

You Already Know This – OPINION

Lynn Woolsey called for a “progressive resurgence” in a Hill blog article today. Who the heck does she think got us to this horrible mess in the first place? Look who has been running government for the past 3+ years! Besides, there really hasn’t been time to have a real conservative resurgence… yet. Maybe she is looking into the future and what November will bring.

The problem with progressivism is that, just because it sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government should be doing it or spending money on it. After all, their track record of success is pretty bleak no matter how noble they think their causes are.

The original founders saw the USA as a collection of individual countries (states) united under one limited federal government so that we would not end up where we are today; top down central planning. Instead they saw a country with a small federal government and strong state governments. Yet here we are 234 years after the Declaration of Independence, and we are exactly where they feared we would be; huge federal government (much more powerful than King George was?), unbridled deficit spending, freedoms being incrementally taken away in the name of “fairness” and religion kicked to the curb (unless you are a Muslim extremist). How did this happen? Over time, that’s how.

There is only so much bandwidth and money with which to tackle all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed over the years. And then our congressmen use those bad laws which survive to serve as precedents upon which to write more bad laws. This is the reason for the Constitution. It is a measuring stick by which laws are to be written (or not). But with Federal Judges seeing it as a “living, breathing document” they have twisted the Constitution to mean something other than what was originally intended. So it would seem the problem with progressivism is that in top down planning everyone must do it the same way regardless if it’s a good idea or not. Where’s the freedom? Besides that, it is not “constitutional”.

The original idea was that each state was a unique experiment free to try different things to see what worked to solve their challenges. It was even codified in the 10th Amendment in case the original version of the Constitution didn’t make that clear. It says, “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.”

Obama and Progressives call this a “negative” right. Actually, it is exactly right (correct)… period. Each state government was supposed to decide for itself how it should be run. They could then look to other states and see what worked in order to implement or improve upon those which their constituents found favorable. Not so today. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any area in any state that didn’t come under the rule of some bureau of the federal government.

The original purpose of the Federal Government was to solve disputes and problems which crossed state lines. Read George Washington’s biography and you will learn that he viewed the federal government as a necessary evil and loathed the thought of it. He knew what “progressives” would do if given half a chance.

Examples of the founders intent for responsibilities of Federal government would be building and maintaining bridges between bordering states, or regulating commerce on shared waterways that touch several states. Two of the things the federal government is actually supposed to do, defending our borders or protecting our freedom overseas, are the same things Progressives complain about spending money on. They say we should be spending the money here on infrastructure or education. As in debt as we are, we probably shouldn’t be spending the money anywhere!

If you want to see the failures of progressivism you only need to look at states like Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii or California and cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, etc. to see that the progressive experiment doesn’t work. High crime and high unemployment are the norm for liberal bastions such as these. Yet what happens when Lynn Woolsey talks about how we need a progressive resurgence? Socialist ideologues come out of the woodwork and praise her, even though she and her buddies have spent us into the poor house thanks to progressives. Those people will never be persuaded to see the truth.

It is my belief that the majority of people in this area are liberal because they can afford to be. Things are pretty good for many people in Marin County. Fortunately, the high unemployment rate in California hasn’t really hit the San Francisco Bay Area yet… yet. Does that mean we should wait until it gets worse before we do something? Unlike an Obama administration spokesperson, we are not looking for a crisis to use to our advantage. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that to change people’s minds.

What we must do is seek out the reasonable Democrats, the patriotic ones who love our country and believe the party has left them, and turn them to our side like Reagan did. There are common sense, patriotic people on the other side who don’t like what their Democratic Party has become. They may not change parties, but they can be persuaded to vote for a candidate who wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and help businesses create jobs, among other ideals that will truly embody progress.

- FedUpEditor

Liberal Papers, Marin IJ and Press Democrat Support Halliwell – Judd is Favorite of Conservatives!

It’s no surprise that liberal papers like the Marin Independent Journal and Santa Rosa’s Press Democrat have thrown their support behind Mike Halliwell, a two time loser to unseat Woolsey. However, conservatives and business people have thrown support behind newcomer Jim Judd in hopes of making real change that will bring back conservative values in northern California!

Here is an Editorial from the PD and the link to it online

Who’s To Blame?

There is an old saying, “Losers fix the blame; winners fix what caused the problem.” It is as true now as it has ever been.

Day in and day out we are being presented with stories about the oil leak in the Gulf with finger pointing as to who is to blame for it. Industry blames regulators, and regulators blame the various industry players; the players start blaming each other. Why isn’t the environmental lobby being implicated? After all, if it weren’t for their strict no-drilling policy in other “safe” places, would we have to go so far off-shore to retrieve oil with dangerous deep-water drilling techniques? The answer, of course, is no.

But put all that aside. Just because there have been a few disasters related to oil production, refining and transport, does that mean we should stop drilling altogether like Arnold Schwarzenegger has concluded? With that same logic, any time a plane goes down, we would discontinue air travel. It is as stupid and predictable as those anti-gun zealots who think crime will stop if we ban firearms. All or nothing.

And if we stop drilling, does that mean the rest of the world stops drilling? No! In fact, other countries are ramping up their domestic oil production because we are not. Seeing us as the suckers we are, they know there is no other alternative energy source right now, and they have leverage over us.

Lynn Woolsey is leading the charge against big oil and big coal. Google reported many news stories over the last couple of days mentioning her name and quoting her, not like the lame representative she is, but as if she is riding in on her white horse to save us all. Her committees have been especially harsh on these two industries because of the recent problems; the mining disaster and the oil spill in the gulf. It’s almost as if Woolsey thinks she can legislate our way to never having another disaster or another lost life. Could this be considered a “God” complex? After all, she has been in the House so long I’m sure she thinks she is invincible. I hear she is so confident (or is that arrogant?) that she will not campaign here this fall, but will go out and help other Democrats get elected. Is she counting her chickens? But I am getting off my point.

Let me ask a few questions of Lynn Woolsey. If everyone starts running electric vehicles like you propose, where will the electricity come from? Have you thought that far ahead to consider that California has brown outs almost every summer as it is? Are you offering any alternative solutions to producing electricity in our state or in the nation? You talk about wind and solar as if they are our salvation. But I hear environmentalists are against putting solar panels in the desert to preserve its pristine beauty. That would make wind farms out of the question as well. How do you, Ms. Woolsey, propose to supply our country’s energy needs? Get back to me after we put you out on your rear end this November.

Now let’s look at our President. We are 18 months into his presidency, and Obama is still pointing to the failures of the previous administration for our woes today. It is wearing thin, as polls show. For Heaven’s sake, he has had more than enough time to do at least ONE thing right, but day after day he continues to lay blame and make excuses. The only solutions he has are to raise taxes, spend more money, create more government welfare and pass the buck. Is that what we want from our leaders?

I, for one, am tired of it. I know most of you are too. So is the country, and polls show there will be a huge surge to the right in November if the trend continues. Dick Morris says we stand to pick up 10 Senate seats (including California where he thinks Boxer is especially vulnerable to Chuck DeVore). This is because people are tired of the blame game.

No matter how you dress it up, people are waking up to the fact that government, you know, the ones who caused these problems, are certainly not the ones to solve them. If anything, people are learning that actually solving problems is not in the government’s best interest. Only saying they are going to solve them is business as usual. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can blame whomever they want for the housing crisis, but they should be pointing into the mirror when doing so. Let’s send them back to the Minor League this Fall.

- FedUpEditor

Woolsey Again?

Ms. Woolsey should be concerned about the death of her Democratic Party. Once again she fails to realize that many good things have come from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But like true liberals, she believes the absence of war is peace. WRONG. Look at other places on the globe where dictators are killing people who disagree with them. Yet Woolsey looks the other way.

It’s true we are spending lots of money on the two wars, but not nearly as much as the money we are spending here at home on worthless government jobs and their benefits. It is killing our economy, and the war will now be brought home. Woolsey thinks her seat is safe, so much so that she will not campaign in her own district this fall. Pure arrogance.

What she fails to realize is that people (even Democrats) are tired of the endless spending and want to move this train wreck off the tracks and rebuild our engine of economic prosperity. With unemployment hovering at nearly 10% (and ready to climb as the recession drags on) Congress is set to extend unemployment benefits once again. This will disguise the real number of people out of work. As the printing presses whirl away kicking out endless supplies of more and more devalued dollars, Woolsey thinks she can buy her seat.

Woolsey doesn’t understand that people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the ones producing so that others can feed off their hard work. The ones I have talked to are tired of it… both parties. After 17 years in Congress, are we better off now with Democrats running everything? You be the judge.

In the meantime, take a look at Jim Judd for Congress and see what you think. He is a commonsense guy who thinks both party establishments are to blame. Woolsey is going to be surprised come November!

BERKELEY REPEALS BAN ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/california-law/83-california-proposed-municipal-ordinances/879-faced-with-nra-crpa-foundation-lawsuit-berkeley-repeals-ban-on-possession-of-certain-semi-automatic-rifles.html


FACED WITH NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION LAWSUIT, BERKELEY REPEALS BAN ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES

 
            In response to a pre-litigation demand letter sent by lawyers for the NRA and CRPA Foundation, on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to repeal that city’s ban on the possession of certain semiautomatic rifles, which had remained “on the books” as Municipal Code Section 13.47 despite being obviously preempted by state law.

            The repeal is the culmination of discussions between attorneys for the NRA and CRPA and the Berkeley City Attorney’s office.  The City of Berkeley initially resisted all requests by the NRA and CRPA to repeal this ordinance.  But the City Attorney’s report to the City Council makes clear that the motivation to finally repeal the ordinance was the threat of litigation from NRA/CRPA.  

            One person objected to the repealing of the ordinance during public comment, but the City Attorney quickly corrected him that, as explained by the NRA/CRPA letter, this is a settled legal matter for which the City of Berkeley has no recourse.  The City Attorney conceded the preemptive effect of the Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, 158 Cal.App.4th 895 (2008) case, and that a court would rule in NRA/CRPA’s favor in a lawsuit in this matter.

            This is a victory not only for gun owners who live in or pass through the City of Berkeley and who feared prosecution under this ordinance. The repeal confirms that, contrary to the gun ban lobby’s claims, there are limits to what restrictions cities can place on firearms, and that Fiscal has preemptive effect throughout California. The repeal demand letter and staff report can be read at ww.calgunlaws.com.

            The repeal efforts were funded by the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action project. To contribute to the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support Second Amendment cases that directly benefit California gun owners, visit www.crpafoundation.org.   LAP is a joint venture between the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about the programs at their disposal that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.         

C.D. Michel
Senior Counsel

My Take on Mort Sahl’s Pacific Sun Interview

If you haven’t seen Mort Sahl’s interview, you should at least take a look. Fortunately, it’s still online at the Pacific Sun. Though I disagree with some of his political opinions, he isn’t very happy about most politicians, except perhaps Ron Paul whom he mentions favorably.

I was surprised. His take on Obama is right on. After all the promises to do it differently from Clinton or Bush, Obama is still in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He also hasn’t closed Guantanamo. Not that I am against either one, I am just agreeing with his point that Obama, in spite of promises for hope and change, he is more of the same.

Where I also disagree with Sahl is that these two wars are just like Vietnam and that enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried by the military. I was nearly drafted in the Viet Nam War… Drafted. There is no draft. All these soldiers in the Middle East are volunteers so that makes the current wars much different than the one in 1968. Sahl also talks about bankrupting the country, but doesn’t blame entitlement spending which is much more than any war we have fought. He blames paying for the wars as to why we are in debt. WRONG! And why should enemy combatants be tried in civilian courts and given the same rights as citizens? WRONG AGAIN!

Regardless of our political differences, I believe this is one person you could have a sane conversation. Apparently he frequents the Piazza D’Angelo’s in downtown Mill Valley. Who knows? I may have even seen him there and not recognized him!

- FedUpEditor

Arizona Passes Law that is Constitutional – Obama Says It’s “Misguided”

Newsmax: PHOENIX — The Arizona House on Tuesday approved a bill that would draw local communities deeper into the fight against illegal immigration despite arguments from opponents that it would do nothing to keep people safer.

House Republicans advanced the measure on a 35-21 party-line vote. The Senate approved the bill in February but must concur to changes made in the House before sending it to Gov. Jan Brewer.

Supporters celebrated the bill as a tough crackdown on illegal immigration that will protect the state from violent criminals.

Arizona’s struggling economy has driven many illegal immigrants from the state. But as the economy rebounds, “so too will the illegal immigrants — larger, stronger and more destructive than they were several years ago,” said Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills.

“We need to put this law in place now so that when the new illegal immigrants come, we’re prepared to do battle with them,” he said.

The measure would create a new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document. It would allow officers to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they’re legally in the country.

The proposal also would ban so-called soft immigration policies at local police agencies. It would allow people to sue if they feel a government agency has adopted a policy that hinders the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.

The provision is designed to target law enforcement policies that prevent officers from asking people about their immigration status, but opponents worry it will make victims and witnesses scared to work with police and prosecutors.

“This is a false hope for the people of Arizona. It’s a false sense of security for our neighborhoods,” said Rep. Chad Campbell, R-Phoenix.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who is one of Arizona’s loudest voices opposing illegal immigration.

Tuesday’s vote demonstrated Pearce’s political power at the Legislature and underscored the pressure on Republicans to support crackdowns on illegal immigration. The measure won support from all 35 House Republicans, including a handful who said they had serious concerns with the legislation.

“This bill is filled with problems, huge problems. But more importantly it will not stem the tide of illegal immigration,” Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-Safford, said before adding that he feels “obligated” to support the bill anyway.

Konopnicki said the best way to address illegal immigration is with fences, electronic surveillance, air support and more border patrol agents.

Read the entire article here.

• Recent Posts

  • IRS is NON Political – They Will Go After Anyone!
  • Response to Barbara Boxer’s Form Letter
  • Our Monetary System
  • API Sponsors Job Rallies – Where are our Politicians?
  • Ethanol 15 – Coming soon to a neighborhood near you!
  • Something for Nothing… and Sometimes Even Less – OPINION
  • API President says Senate leaders took right step to shelve flawed spill bill
  • Guess Who Is Paying for Lawyers to Sue Themselves?
  • Letdown? OPINION
  • API Sounds Off on the Drilling Moratorium… The Second One!

Copyright © 2007 FedUpNetwork · Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner · Log in