Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Wikipedia...Never, Never, Never, Never...in matters great or small (besides, they lie a lot and they know it!)

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. - Winston Churchill
Never, never, never, never, use Wikipedia for accuracy great or small, large or petty or for anything that makes good sense. ~ Norman E. Hooben
____________________

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Global Warmers Changed History To Support Theory

Source: Politics Alabama

Here's one aspect of ClimateGate that you probably hadn't considered: Wikipedia. Don't worry, global warming activists did NOT forget about it.

APPARENTLY, there was one person dedicated to removing from Wikipedia anything that contradicted their pet theory... and he was a busy little man, blocking or removing thousands of such entries.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745

Beginning in February 2003, [William] Connolley rewrote Wikipedia entries on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the instrumental temperature record, the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling, according to the report. In February, he began editing the Little Ice Age. By August, he began to rewrite history without the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned to the hockey-stick chart.

"He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band," Solomon explains. "Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period."

Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.


"When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand," Solomon wrote. "When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions."

Meanwhile, followers who adhered to Connolley's climate views "were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings," Solomon contends.

Through his control of the Wikipedia pages, Connolley is said to have "turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

Facts about the Medieval Warm Period and criticism of global warming doctrine were purportedly scrubbed from Wikipedia's pages.


For those who claim that ClimateGate "doesn't change the science," you might want to think again. Suppressing contradictory information does, in fact, change the science.

In my opinion, the fact that they felt they had to rewrite history and remove contradictory studies shows that their theory is false... and that they know it.

Warnings Galore (continued) ...Roger Gardner Responds from the past.

There are two posts here from different sources... both posted just hours ago. Our friend Roger Gardner responds to both just over a year ago (see below) ...just so you know, Roger passed away last week. ~ Norm
____________________

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

"I am Muslim, I am American" Notice which comes first

CAIR

With the onslaught of jihad attacks thwarted and executed across America and the world, CAIR is investing untold thousands upon thousands of dollars on a deception in the heart of New York City, infidel central. If what they are desperately trying to project is reality, and this is so obvious, why does CAIR have to keep telling us this? If this were so, we would know. Why do they have to keep beating us over the head with this nonsense?

Obviously, the recent spate of Islamic attacks in Fort Hood and the planned bombings in Dallas, and Chicago, and Denver and New York City tells us a very different story, and is the motivation behind this hilarious campaign.

Take a look at the ad going up at Times Square. Here we have Tariq Ramadan -- that name is no accident. A cherubic boy with the name of the silver-tongued devil of Europe. Evil personified banned from America.

Public service announcement (PSA) to air on CBS Super Screen Dec. 22-Jan. 16

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization announced today that its new public service announcement (PSA), called "I am Muslim, I am American," began airing this morning on the CBS Super Screen in New York City's Times Square.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said its New York chapter (CAIR-NY) produced the 15-second PSA, which will air every hour for 18 hours each day through January 16, 2010, on the 26-foot by 20-foot full-motion screen. More than one million people pass through Times Square each day.

CAIR-NY's PSA features an American Muslim NYPD sergeant, as well as a Muslim Little League all-star, a human rights activist, a doctoral candidate, and an attorney. It begins with the statement, "Building Community, Serving Country." Viewers are encouraged to visit CAIR's Web site.

To view the PSA, go to: http://www.cair.com/ny/

"This public service advertisement features ordinary American Muslims whose everyday lives are dedicated to building community and serving country," said CAIR-NY Community Affairs Director Faiza N. Ali. "This initiative is part of our ongoing effort to ensure that a fair and accurate portrayal of Islam and Muslims is presented to the American public."

Ali added that the PSA will air during the New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square, when up to one million people turn out to watch the ball drop at midnight.

"We hope that the millions of people from around the nation and the world who view this public service announcement will return home with enhanced understanding of Islam and the American Muslim community," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Our PSA shows that American Muslims are a vital part of our nation's social and religious fabric."

If I had the dough, I would do this same campaign with Major Muslim Hasan, Zazi the nazi, Talib Islam, Hosam Smadi, John Muhammad, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, Ahmad Afzali, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, Syed Haris Ahmed, Umar Chaudhry, Waqar Khan, Ahmad A. Minni, Aman Hassan Yemer and Ramy Zamzam, Daood Gilani, Abdulsalam al-Zahrani, et al.


Muslim children training for jihad (video) Video hat tip Armaros via Creeping Sharia

Why doesn't CAIR spend these tens of thousands of dollars on an initiative to expunge the violent texts from the koran? Why isn't that their mission? Why do they spit in our face and tell us it's raining?

"I am Muslim, I am American, I am a fulla shitnik."

_______________________

From Wake Up America

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Pinch Us Because We Must Be Dreaming

From The Marston Chronicles

There is no way that what is happening can be real so I must be dreaming as are we all. I can prove to you that this must be the case and that we must all be having the same hallucinatory dream. Think back to 2003 for a moment. You are in a bookstore and you see a best selling novel set a few years in the future in Washington DC that is all about political intrigue. In this novel the author has made up this scenario whereby you are asked to imagine this future he has created.

In this future set just a few years ahead, we are asked to believe America has elected a black male President when blacks make up only 12.3% of the population and we have done this before even electing a female President. Okay, that is realistic enough since there are a lot of intelligent competent black Americans who have the necessary credentials to run this country. One can image Colin Powell being President or even getting a two for one by electing a black female President like Dr. Condoleezza Rice. However, the author wants you to believe that instead we have elected a black male who was known for having strong socialist tendencies based on his own statements. Not only that, but he has clearly associated with unsavory characters who have been known unrepentant domestic terrorists, blatant racists and convicted felons. Now who is going to believe that we would elect anyone who could not get a security clearance to be his own bodyguard and essentially give him the highest security clearance of all?

Everyone knows what a field day the news media would have pointing all of this out to the American public. After all, you get Pulitzer Prizes for pulling down a politician with a track record like this. There would be a news media feeding sensation with each of them trying to outdo the other to reveal in a breathless voice the next documented (or maybe even undocumented ones like Dan Rather did) scandal. What publisher would accept a manuscript with such a cockamamie premise? If that is not enough to invoke disbelief, the author wants you to believe that we would elect a man President who spent his formative years going to a Muslim school in a place like Indonesia. How could he be a "natural born citizen" under such circumstances even if he was born in Hawaii? Why would anyone believe we would elect a man with Muslim sympathies a mere seven years after 9/11?

We are all willing to suspend belief for the sake of a good story but this is getting ridiculous. Finally, this man has no experience in business and has never had to meet a payroll. Most businessmen would not hire him to push a wheelbarrow and even then only to satisfy an affirmative action quota. But actually he has been an affirmative action bonus baby all the way. He has never had to earn anything because it all has been handed to him on a silver platter because of the color of his skin. The author wants us to believe that the American people would actually do such a racist thing because of some imaginary guilt complex about slavery on the part of the 74.3% of the American people who just happen to have white skin.

But wait, it gets even better. Along with electing this black President, the American voters gave his party control of both houses of Congress including a filibuster proof Senate. They in turn have tried to jam a legislative agenda down the throats of the American people that is opposed by a clear majority of the people. They have ruled that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" and giving the EPA authority to regulate anything producing more than 250 tons of carbon dioxide in a year. That includes the vast majority of all businesses, and all schools, hospitals, shopping malls, etc in the entire country. They are passing a so-called health care reform bill that requires everyone to obtain health insurance or pay a fine for not doing so. Failure to pay the fine gets you a jail sentence. The bill even contains language that makes it impossible to ever repeal certain provisions of it.

Everyone knows that the cardinal rule of politics is to get re-elected. This author actually wants us to believe that even though they do not have one single vote from the opposing party, that politicians would commit political suicide by passing such a bill. Such foolish things are only done by ideologues and they make poor politicians. Not only that but the author has them get the necessary votes to do so with out and out bribes right out in front of a credulous public. When this is pointed out to them, their attitude is: Too bad because we are going to do it anyway. When it is pointed out that the Constitution does not give them the authority to do this, their attitude is: The Constitution allows us to do whatever we feel is necessary because we can always find enough liberal activist judges who agree with us. What politician in the real world could ever be so credulous and naive?

Even political novices know that messing with social security and medicare is the third rail of politics. How can the author want us to believe that any politician would pull $500,000,000,000 out of medicare for any reason whatsoever when some of them represent districts where one out of every four voters is over 65? He wants us to believe that the largest association of retired people would sell out their membership by approving this bill. He wants us to believe that the AMA would do the same thing. Obviously this author does not know the first thing about American politics. You really just cannot make stuff like this up and get anyone to believe you. That is why this cannot be some book published in 2003 that has all this nonsense in it.

That is why this must be a dream. We must all be having this dream at the same time because it just cannot be true. It makes no sense whatsoever. What a total nightmare! Pinch us all so we can wake up and know this was just a bad dream. I just pinched myself and I am still having this dream. How about you? Are you having the same dream? If you are not, help me wake up. Please? Pretty please with sugar and molasses on it?

____________________

Roger Responds

Sunday, November 30, 2008

From Mumbai to the United States of America: Are You Ready Now?


How could our enemy make themselves any more obvious? Here is the truth, plain and simple: the enemy is Islam. Their avowed mission is to utterly destroy or totally dominate the West. They have been prosecuting this War against the West for at least five decades now. Since World War Two, they have been responsible for innumerable bloody attacks against our innocent civilians, against our innocent women and children. Every year they grow stronger, and more and more emboldened. Every year they increase the frequency and the severity of their attacks. And what price have they paid for this relentless orgy of mass murder? What real pain have we ever actually inflicted on them? What have we done to them to deter them from further attacks? Anything? Have we ever really hurt them at all?

Are we going to continue relying on the United Nations to admonish them and to dissuade them from their great jihad against the West? Are we going to look for help from this useless multi-national organization, who has repeatedly sanctioned these terrorist attacks by presenting Islam as the victim of Western aggression? Are we going to look to the toothless and morally conflicted EU to help us to win this war? Those cowardly Europeans who cannot even find the will to protect their own nations from this encroaching Muslim menace?


After all this time, do we really not know who the enemy is? Do we really not know who gives them comfort and succor? Are we still determined to close our eyes and ears to this loud and clear message from Mumbai?


Or are we finally ready now to fight this war with brave deeds instead of cowardly words, to finally inflict some real pain on this blood-soaked enemy who is determined to destroy us? Are we ready now?


If we are ready, if we are truly determined to protect ourselves, then we must deter the enemy. Do we really have no weapons in this war? Are we really that helpless? The answer is No. We have the weapons to use, we just have to use them. We just have to get serious. Here is how we could begin.


Number one:
All Muslim immigration to the US must be curtailed immediately.

Number two:
All Muslims here in this country, whether citizens of this country or not, must be treated as enemy aliens, and either rounded up or deported.

Number three:
Islam must be declared to not be considered a religion, but rather an enemy ideology, incompatible with our democratic principles, and the practice of Islam must be declared illegal in the US or any of its territories.

Number four:
We must close all mosques and all Islamic organizations. Anyone promoting or advocating Islam must be declared to be an enemy of the State.

Number five:
Any country that promotes the cause of Islam must henceforth be considered an enemy of the United States.

Number six:
Any threats against the West in general or America in particular must be considered acts of war. And the country from which these threats emerge must be punished in some immediate and meaningful way. In this, we will act ruthlessly and unilaterally, regardless of the interests of other countries or of the corrupt, anti-Western, pro-Islamic UN.

Number seven:
All options must be left on the table. The nuclear option must be made real. If our very existence is to be at stake, then we must be prepared to threaten the very existence of our enemies.

Number eight:
No more words. No more empty diplomatic sanctions. If we are attacked we will react violently and disproportionately and without mercy.

Number nine:
We are ready now to show the world that we truly do have the will to survive and the will to inflict terrible injuries on our enemies. And to our enemies we say this, We have exhausted all other means of deterrence, now we are going to use our awesome might to subjugate you and destroy your will. If you will not respect us then, by God, you will learn to fear us. Know that there will be no limits to our revenge. We will find you and we will kill you. We will kill your families and we will destroy your homes. We will flatten your cities and reduce your countries to ashes before we will submit to your barbaric will. Take a lesson from Imperialist Japan. You have awakened and angered a great beast and now you will pay the terrible consequences of your folly.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Obama Care Raises A Constitutional Point

Source: Michelle Malkin

Forcing A Vote On Demcare's Constitutionality

By Michelle Malkin

GOP Sens. Jim DeMint and John Ensign announced this afternoon that they’ll force a vote on the constitutionality of Demcare’s individual health care mandate. (Democrat response: Constitution? Wellness prevention programs are an inalienable right!)

Here’s the press release:

Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.

The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater.

The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”

More: Conservative leaders against the illegal individual mandate.

On a related front, Sen. DeMint has challenged the supermajority protection embedded in Reid’s package.

Thanks for fighting for us, Sen. DeMint! Fight with everything you have.

Section 3403 ...Is this the death of America?

Update August 19, 2013: If you want to cut to the chase and see what the hell is really going on check out the video at th bottom of this page.

Update April 2013: More info here and be sure to read Bookmarking Doom
 ...and if you happen to be a Christian check in here.
 
 
This page visited by (among others) :
Domain Namehouse.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address143.231.249.# (Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISPInformation Systems, U.S. House of Represent
Location
Continent: North America
Country: United States (Facts)
State: District of Columbia
City: Washington
Domain Namesenate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address156.33.79.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISPU.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location
Continent: North America
Country: United States (Facts)
State: District of Columbia
City: Washington

Domain Namenasa.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address128.158.1.# (National Aeronautics and Space Association)
ISPNational Aeronautics and Space Association
Domain Nameusdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISPUS Dept of Justice
Location
Continent: North America
Country: United States (Facts)
State: District of Columbia
City: Washington

Note: For whatever reason there has been a lot of interest in this post in recent times. March 23, 2010 ~ N.E.H.
Update March 14, 2010 see also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljg_pQi35cg
See additional update March 11, 2010 What's going on here?
See update at bottom of page. March 10, 2010

SimonJester We Are No Longer A Nation Of Laws
Senate Sets Up Requirement For Super-Majority To Ever Repeal Obamacare

The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels
Posted by Erick Erickson
Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”
It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.
It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.
On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.
How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.
Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

Senator DeMint responded:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.

For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.
————————————————————————————-
7:30 PM
PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senator from south carolina.

DEMINT
mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
without objection.

DEMINT
parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?

7:31 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it does.

DEMINT
further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that would require a two-thirds vote.

DEMINT
i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he

referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?

7:32 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.

DEMINT
i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions and rules changes?

i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because there were rules changes included in them?

7:34 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair would like to check that for a future answer.

DEMINT
okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?

7:38 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.

DEMINT
okay. mr. president –

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.

DEMINT
mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?

7:39 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it is quite common to do that.

DEMINT
i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that
it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.

7:40 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.

7:41 PM
DEMINT
is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
yes.

DEMINT
and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that is correct.

DEMINT
then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.


See also: Obama and Hillary Climbing Into Bed With The United Nations (Note: The information provided by this story should have put Bill Clinton behind bars for the remainder of his life.  The reason Clinton wasn't incarcerated... "Good men did nothing!"

Update March 10, 2010 There must be something of interest in this particular post for the following IP addresses visited today. All within a short time of one another and most with the exact key search words. Now why is that?
Domain Name

qwest.net ? (Network)
IP Address

71.38.50.# (Qwest Communications)
ISP

Qwest Communications
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Arizona
City
:
Tucson
Domain Name

ameritech.net ? (Network)
IP Address

66.72.181.# (Goldenburg Hehmeyer & Co)
ISP

SBC Internet Services
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Illinois
City
:
Chicago
 
Domain Name

yousq.net ? (Network)
IP Address

64.198.85.# (YOU SQUARED)
ISP

McLeodUSA Incorporated
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Iowa
City
:
Dubuque
 
Domain Name

(Unknown)
IP Address

38.104.167.# (Performance Systems International)
ISP

Performance Systems International
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
District of Columbia
City
:
Washington
 
Domain Name

(Unknown)
IP Address

69.85.109.# (Ellijay Community Television)
ISP

Ellijay Community Television
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Georgia
City
:
Blue Ridge
Domain Name

centurytel.net ? (Network)
IP Address

75.121.95.# (CenturyTel Internet Holdings)
ISP

CenturyTel Internet Holdings
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Missouri
City
:
Wright City
 
Domain Name

nctv.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

69.59.64.# (Northland Cable Television)
ISP

Northland Cable Television
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Texas
City
:
Tyler
 
Domain Name

(Unknown)
IP Address

173.224.8.# (Unknown Organization)
ISP

Unknown ISP
Location

Continent
:
Unknown
Country
:
Unknown
Lat/Long
:
unknown
Language

English (U.S.)
 
Domain Name

cogentco.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

66.250.6.# (Cogent Communications)
ISP

Cogent Communications
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Texas
City
:
Dallas
Domain Name

Princeton.EDU ? (Educational)
IP Address

140.180.29.# (Princeton University)
ISP

Princeton University
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
New Jersey
City
:
Princeton
Domain Name

rogers.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

74.102.165.# (Rogers Cable)
ISP

Rogers Cable
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State/Region
:
Ontario
City
:
Toronto
 
Domain Name

bellsouth.net ? (Network)
IP Address

70.144.215.# (BellSouth.net)
ISP

BellSouth.net
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Mississippi
City
:
Swan Lake
Domain Name

rcn.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

208.58.124.# (RCN Corporation)
ISP

RCN Corporation
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
Lat/Long
:
38, -97 (Map)
Distance
:
786 miles
Domain Name

cox.net ? (Network)
IP Address

70.182.223.# (Cox Communications)
ISP

Cox Communications
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Oklahoma
City
:
Tulsa
Domain Name

statefarm.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

205.166.218.# (STATE FARM INSURANCE)
ISP

STATE FARM INSURANCE
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Illinois
City
:
Bloomington
This IP address came a 2nd time
Domain Name

rcn.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

208.58.124.# (RCN Corporation)
ISP

RCN Corporation
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
Lat/Long
:
38, -97 (Map)
Distance
:
786 miles
Domain Name

charter.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

71.9.21.# (CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS)
ISP

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Nevada
City
:
Reno
Domain Name

embarqhsd.net ? (Network)
IP Address

71.55.225.# (Embarq Corporation)
ISP

Embarq Corporation
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Florida
City
:
Leesburg
 
Domain Name

charter.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

24.217.137.# (CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS)
ISP

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Missouri
City
:
Saint Peters
Domain Name

byu.edu ? (Educational)
IP Address

128.187.0.# (Brigham Young University)
ISP

Brigham Young University
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Utah
City
:
Provo
Domain Name

(Unknown)
IP Address

98.166.134.# (Cox Communications)
ISP

Cox Communications
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
Lat/Long
:
38, -97 (Map)
Distance
:
786 miles
Domain Name

manalive.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

208.252.159.# (MEG Division of Hirsch Industries)
ISP

Verizon Business
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Indiana
City
:
Cambridge City
 
Domain Name

aol.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

205.188.117.# (America Online)
ISP

America Online
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
Lat/Long
:
38, -97 (Map)
Distance
:
786 miles
 
Domain Name

rr.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

75.180.226.# (Road Runner)
ISP

Road Runner
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
North Carolina
City
:
Wilmington
Domain Name

aol.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

207.200.116.# (America Online)
ISP

America Online
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
Lat/Long
:
38, -97 (Map)
Distance
:
786 miles
 
Domain Name

rogers.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

99.195.246.# (Unknown Organization)
ISP

Unknown ISP
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
Lat/Long
:
38, -97 (Map)
Distance
:
786 miles
 
Domain Name

comcast.net ? (Network)
IP Address

24.6.225.# (Comcast Cable)
ISP

Comcast Cable
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
California
City
:
Sunnyvale
Update #2 March 11, 2010
Maybe somebody out there could tell me whats going on...Why the diverse interest in this particular post? Here's an additional sampling of todays visitors:

Domain Name

(Unknown)
IP Address

12.13.141.# (IBM AMTRAK)
ISP

AT&T WorldNet Services
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
District of Columbia
City
:
Washington
Lat/Long
:
38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Distance
:
707 miles
Language

English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System

Microsoft WinXP
Browser

Internet Explorer 7.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript

version 1.3
Monitor

Resolution
:
1680 x 1050
Color Depth
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Mar 11 2010 8:26:28 am
Last Page View

Mar 11 2010 8:26:28 am
Visit Length

0 seconds
Page Views

1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page

Visit Exit Page

Out Click


Time Zone

Visitor's Time

Mar 11 2010 8:26:28 am
Visit Number

57,241


Domain Name

charter.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address

75.141.186.# (CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS)
ISP

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Missouri
City
:
Saint Louis


Domain Name

(Unknown)
IP Address

174.51.134.# (Unknown Organization)
ISP

Unknown ISP
Location

Continent
:
Unknown
Country
:
Unknown
Lat/Long
:
unknown
Language

English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System

Macintosh WinNT
Browser

Safari 1.3Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.0.249.89 Safari/532.5
Javascript

version 1.5
Monitor

Resolution
:
1280 x 720
Color Depth
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Mar 11 2010 8:48:36 am
Last Page View

Mar 11 2010 8:48:36 am
Visit Length

0 seconds
Page Views

1
Referring URL
Search Engine
google.com
Search Words
section 3403
Visit Entry Page

Visit Exit Page

Out Click


Time Zone

Visitor's Time

Mar 11 2010 6:48:36 am
Visit Number

57,243


Domain Name

bellsouth.net ? (Network)
IP Address

65.2.87.# (BellSouth.net)
ISP

BellSouth.net
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Florida
City
:
Hollywood
Lat/Long
:
26.0098, -80.2592 (Map)
Distance
:
498 miles
Language

English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System

Microsoft WinXP
Browser

Internet Explorer 7.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript

version 1.3
Monitor

Resolution
:
1024 x 768
Color Depth
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Mar 11 2010 8:05:32 am
Last Page View

Mar 11 2010 8:05:32 am
Visit Length

0 seconds
Page Views

1
Referring URL
Search Engine
google.com
Search Words
section 3403
Visit Entry Page

Visit Exit Page

Out Click


Time Zone

Visitor's Time

Mar 11 2010 8:05:32 am
Visit Number

57,240
 

Domain Name

eku.edu ? (Educational)
IP Address

157.89.109.# (Eastern Kentucky University)
ISP

Eastern Kentucky University
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Kentucky
City
:
Richmond
Lat/Long
:
37.7666, -84.3031 (Map)
Distance
:
442 miles
Language

English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System

Microsoft WinXP
Browser

Internet Explorer 7.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript

version 1.3
Monitor

Resolution
:
1024 x 768
Color Depth
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Mar 11 2010 7:02:49 am
Last Page View

Mar 11 2010 7:02:49 am
Visit Length

0 seconds
Page Views

1
Referring URL
Search Engine
google.com
Search Words
section 3403
Visit Entry Page

Visit Exit Page

Out Click


Time Zone

Visitor's Time

Mar 11 2010 7:02:49 am
Visit Number

57,230

 
Domain Name

comcast.net ? (Network)
IP Address

98.197.164.# (Comcast Cable)
ISP

Comcast Cable
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Texas
City
:
Texas City
Lat/Long
:
29.4081, -94.9078 (Map)
Distance
:
569 miles
Language

English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System

Microsoft WinXP
Browser

Internet Explorer 7.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.4; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; MS-RTC EA 2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript

version 1.3
Monitor

Resolution
:
1024 x 768
Color Depth
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Mar 11 2010 6:22:56 am
Last Page View

Mar 11 2010 6:22:56 am
Visit Length

0 seconds
Page Views

1
Referring URL
Search Engine
google.com
Search Words
section 3403
Visit Entry Page

Visit Exit Page

Out Click


Time Zone

Visitor's Time

Mar 11 2010 5:22:56 am
Visit Number

57,229


Domain Name

(Unknown)
IP Address

64.238.205.# (MONTAG ANDCALDWELL)
ISP

Sungard Network Solutions
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
State
:
Pennsylvania
City
:
Philadelphia
Lat/Long
:
39.9494, -75.1457 (Map)
Distance
:
830 miles
Language

English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System

Macintosh WinXP
Browser

Safari 1.3Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.1.249.1025 Safari/532.5
Javascript

version 1.5
Monitor

Resolution
:
1440 x 900
Color Depth
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Mar 11 2010 12:31:29 pm
Last Page View

Mar 11 2010 12:31:29 pm
Visit Length

0 seconds
Page Views

1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page

Visit Exit Page

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
Bottom of this page:

Now for the kicker click here: The End...Its closer than you think