Time: Tue Nov 11 15:04:33 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA17454
for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:26:36 -0700 (MST)
Delivered-To: liberty-and-justice-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:24:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DBV
From: Patricia Neill <pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu>
Subject: L&J: IP: CONGRESS ACTION: November 9, 1997
To: jad@locust.etext.org
Message-id: <01IPW1NOGKQQ9D4EI2@DBV>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
CONGRESS ACTION: November 9, 1997
================
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY: If there is anything clear in the debate over
global warming, it is that nothing is clear. Listen to the scientists.
Edward Teller, Director Emeritus of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory: "the jury is still out." Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan
Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
"...there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global
warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons...". Jeffrey Salmon,
Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute: "The facts
simply do not support the idea of more floods, harsh weather or a global
warming threat due to burning fossil fuels." A climate modeller at
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center considers the relation between
theoretical climate models and actual observed temperatures, and
therefore the validity of the predictions of those models, to be "iffy".
Temperature measurements taken by National Oceonographic and Atmospheric
Administration satellites, far from finding the warming which the
climate models say should already be happening, have actually recorded a
20 year trend of cooler temperatures. We constantly hear that 1995 was
the hottest year on record (false), but the enviros never report the
conclusion of the National Climatic Data Center at NOAA: "In the lower
stratosphere 1993 was extremely cold, the coldest temperatures on
record." To report that would require people to believe that global
warming came upon us all at once over a mere 2 years, which even the
brain dead media and Gore sycophants would dismiss as ludicrous. But for
Al Gore none of this, and a lot more, amounts to 'controlling legal
authority.' Bill Clinton will do as he is told next month in Kyoto
(because Al Gore is running this particular scam), and sign some Treaty
pledging economically destructive reductions in carbon dioxide. That
Treaty, however, will not be the end of the debate, but only the
beginning, and once again the great wisdom of the Founders will be
demonstrated. Because Bill Clinton, much to his disappointment, is
required to submit his handiwork for "...the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur...".
Whatever Clinton signs in Kyoto will be worth only what every other
Clinton promise is worth, unless the United States Senate ratifies his
agreement. The first line of defense in the Senate, and the first to
consider the Treaty, will be the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the
Chairman of which is Jesse Helms. Regardless of what the Foreign
Relations Committee does, political pressure will probably force a full
Senate vote. A negative recommendation by the committee, however, will
go a long way toward defeating Clinton's Folly. But will the Senators on
the Foreign Relations Committee be armed with all the facts they need,
will they hear from all the eminent scientists who counsel caution? Will
they, and the rest of the Senate, be able to resist the
liberal/administration/media onslaught with the knowledge that the
People of this country stand with them, against the special interests?
The members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Republicans:
Jesse Helms (NC); Richard Lugar (IN); Paul Coverdell (GA); Chuck Hagel
(NE); Gordon Smith (OR); Craig Thomas (WY); John Ashcroft (MO); Rod
Grams (MN); Bill Frist (TN); and Sam Brownback (KS).
Democrats:
Joseph Biden (DE); Paul Sarbanes (MD); Christopher Dodd (CT); John Kerry
(MA); Charles Robb (VA); Russ Feingold (WI); Dianne Feinstein (CA); and
Paul Wellstone (MN).
END OF THE LINE FOR THE RACISTS: When the voters of California enacted
(by a margin of 54 to 46 percent) Proposition 209, the California Civil
Rights Initiative, they made a decision that denying equal opportunity
to people on the basis of skin color is no more legitimate when that
color is white, than when that color is black. Liberals were outraged
that their system of special preferences, racism, and discrimination,
painfully built up over decades, was crumbling before their eyes. They
found a sympathetic judge (Thelton henderson) who decided that equal
protection of the laws was unconstitutional, ruling in effect that our
Constitution requires discrimination. The case, Coalition for Economic
Equity v. Wilson, was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which commented
that "A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen
what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity
of our constitutional democracy." "If the federal courts were to decide
what the interests of the people are in the first place, judicial power
would trump self-government as the general rule of our constitutional
democracy. The Constitution permits the people to grant a narrowly
tailored racial preference only if they come forward with a compelling
interest to back it up. To hold that a democratically enacted
affirmative action program is constitutionally permissible because the
people have demonstrated a compelling state interest is hardly to hold
that the program is constitutionally required. The Fourteenth Amendment,
lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees, does not require what it
barely permits."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Henderson, ruling
that Proposition 209 was Constitutional. The race hucksters appealed to
the United States Supreme Court, which this week declined to hear the
appeal, thus upholding the Ninth Circuit decision, and thereby affirmed
the Constitutionality of Proposition 209. And by declining certiorari,
the Supreme Court endorsed the holding and the rationale of the Ninth
Circuit decision.
The big question is: Will the Clinton administration obey the law?
By no means certain with this administration. In 1996 the Federal Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled, in Hopwood v. Texas, that
"...the law school may not use race as a factor in law school
admissions." Hopwood was appealed and the Supreme Court declined to hear
the appeal, thus upholding and affirming the Fifth Circuit. Such a
definitive decision should be enough, yet consider: The Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights at the Education Department, has gone out of
her way to ignore the laws of the United States, and has sought to
compel private entities under her jurisdiction to defy those laws. In
the face of Hopwood, she ordered the Texas University system to
reinstitute race based admissions programs. At the Justice Department,
former head of the Civil Rights division persisted in defying the
Supreme Court's ruling in Adarand v. Pena, in which the Supreme Court
ruled "A free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of
equality, should tolerate no retreat from the principle that government
may treat people differently because of their race only for the most
compelling reasons. Accordingly, we hold today that all racial
classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local
governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict
scrutiny.". The programs reviewed by the lower court on remand did not
meet the Supreme Court's standards, and were ruled invalid. Yet the DOJ
persisted in maintaining those race based preference programs in federal
contracting, in defiance of Adarand.
Now Clinton's battle to maintain a racist society continues with
nominee Bill Lann Lee as head of the Civil Rights Division at the
Justice Department. During his confirmation hearings, Lee stated that he
still believes in affirmative action programs. Lee has always opposed
Proposition 209, and his belief coincides with that of Thelton
Henderson, that Proposition 209 is unconstitutional. Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch announced his opposition to Lee's
nomination because of his support for preferences, but Bill Clinton is
standing by his nomimee, and implied that quotas and civil rights are
one and the same thing: a civil right to preferential treatment.
Democrats perpetuate the myth that they are the party of tolerance
and equality, aided by media disinformation and intentionally induced
historical ignorance fostered by the educational establishment. In fact,
democrats are the party of racial division. In 1856, Lincoln helped to
form the republican party for the purpose of stopping the spread of
slavery into new territories. George Wallace, the poster-boy for racism,
was a democrat. And now, once again, democrats are trying to classify,
divide, reward, and punish people on the basis of skin color; trying to
maintain a racial spoils system; and defending racial discrimination.
Democrats are simply unable to look past a person's skin color or
ancestry and see people as individuals, a fact they prove every day.
Meanwhile, republicans are trying to move toward a society where a
person is judged on the content of his character, not on the color of
his skin. So which party is the home of racists?
"BIPARTISAN" REFORM: It had to happen. The only question was how quickly
the republicans would succumb to democrat demogoguery and bring the
travesty known as the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill up for a
vote. The media has endlessly touted McCain-Feingold as the only true
"bipartisan" reform bill worthy of consideration (and why not, since it
would enormously increase the ability of media liberals to spread their
lies and distortions unchallenged). Democrats are thrilled because it
would silence the right, while continuing to allow their union cohorts
unfettered access to funds extracted from union members, to spend by the
millions against republicans. From the total public silence of
republicans thus far over this issue, one might think that they simply
have nothing to say worth hearing, and that McCain-Feingold is the only
campaign reform legislation in Congress. How many people even know that
the Doolittle alternative (H.R.965) in the House, and other bills in
both House and Senate, exist? Senator Lott could have scheduled
consecutive votes on McCain and some reasonable alternative, so Senators
who didn't want to vote for McCain could vote for another bill, and
truthfully say that they voted for reform. As it is now, those who vote
against McCain will be portrayed by democrats in campaign ads next year
as obstructing reform, since they had no alternative. Does the
republican party have a death wish? Apparently, they cannot stand being
the majority party, but that won't matter since it won't be a problem
for them much longer. If McCain-Feingold ever becomes law with the help
of republican votes, the republican party will be relegated to self
inflicted and well deserved irrelevance. Not that their majority status
matters much now. Democrats, despite their minority status, have managed
to obstruct the Senate campaign fundraising hearings to the point that
the clock has effectively run out on Senator Thompson's committee.
Republicans just can't seem to understand that politics is a highly
partisan game for democrats, in which winning, by any means, is all that
matters. Thus Thompson's attempt at bipartisanship has resulted in a
focus on arcane laws such as who made what phone calls from where, while
ignoring the far more serious evidence of bribery, influence peddling,
obstruction of justice, and the threats to national security. Those who
violated existing laws will go unpunished. The net result: because our
government is populated by criminals, the freedom of the American people
to participate in the political process will be further eroded by new
so-called "reform" laws. And due to republican ineptitude, what should
have been an ethical and legal disaster for democrats will be turned
into a public relations coup for democrats, whose campaign commercials
will lambaste republicans who voted against reform.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect
liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to
freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by
evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." --
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)
FOR MORE INFORMATION...
=======================
GLOBAL WARMING TREATY: Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Room: 450 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4651; Fax: (202) 224-0836
REPUBLICANS
Jesse Helms (NC) 403 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-6342; Fax #: (202) 228-1339; E-Mail:
jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov
Richard Lugar (IN) 306 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-4814; Fax #: (202) 228-0360; E-Mail:
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Paul Coverdell (GA) 200 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-3643; Fax #: (202) 228-3783; E-Mail:
senator_coverdell@coverdell.senate.gov
Chuck Hagel (NE) 346 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-4224; Fax #: (202) 224-5213; E-Mail:
chuck_hagel@hagel.sen.gov
Gordon Smith (OR) 359 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-3753; Fax #: (202) 228-3997; E-Mail:
oregon@gsmith.senate.gov
Craig Thomas (WY) 109 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510;
Phone: (202) 224-6441; Fax #: (202) 224-1724; E-Mail:
craig@thomas.senate.gov
John Ashcroft (MO) 316 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-6154; Fax #: (202) 228-0998; E-Mail:
john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov
Rod Grams (MN) 257 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510;
Phone: (202) 224-3244; Fax #: (202) 228-0956; E-Mail:
mail_grams@grams.senate.gov
Bill Frist (TN) 567 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-3344; Fax #: (202) 228-1264; E-Mail:
senator_frist@frist.senate.gov
Sam Brownback (KS) 303 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-6521; Fax #: (202) 228-1265; E-Mail:
sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov
DEMOCRATS
Joseph Biden (DE) 221 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-5042; Fax #: (202) 224-0139; E-Mail:
senator@biden.senate.gov
Paul Sarbanes (MD) 309 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-4524; Fax #: (202) 224-1651; E-Mail:
senator@sarbanes.senate.gov
Christopher Dodd (CT) 444 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-2823; Fax #: (202) 224-1083; E-Mail:
sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov
John Kerry (MA) 421 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-2742; Fax #: (202) 224-8525; E-Mail:
john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov
Charles Robb (VA) 154 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-4024; Fax #: (202) 224-8689; E-Mail:
senator@robb.senate.gov
Russ Feingold (WI) 716 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-5323; Fax #: (202) 224-2725; E-Mail:
russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Dianne Feinstein (CA) 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-3841; Fax #: (202) 228-3954; E-Mail:
senator@feinstein.senate.gov
Paul Wellstone (MN) 136 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510; Phone: (202) 224-5641; Fax #: (202) 224-8438; E-Mail:
senator@wellstone.senate.gov
END OF THE LINE FOR THE RACISTS:
California Civil Rights Initiative:
http://www.publicaffairsweb.com/ccri/
Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson:
http://www.vcilp.org/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/9715030.htm
Hopwood v. Texas:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov:8081/ISYSquery/IRL6A4.tmp/3/doc#hit9
Adarand v. Pena:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10252
"BIPARTISAN" REFORM:
H.R.965, Doolittle's "Citizen Legislature and Political Freedom Act":
ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/h965.ih.txt
Congressman John Doolittle (R-CA):
e-mail: doolittle@mail.house.gov
web page: http://www.house.gov/doolittle/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kim Weissman
BEVDAV@worldnet.att.net
CONGRESS ACTION newsletter is available on the Internet:
http://www.aimnet.com/~jbv/congress_action.html
-
**********************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
with the message:
subscribe ignition-point email@address
or
unsubscribe ignition-point email@address
**********************************************
http://www.telepath.com/believer
**********************************************
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail