Posts tagged bill

Surprise: Senate Immigration Bill Packed With Kickbacks, Waivers, “Stimulus” Spending




Surprise: Senate Immigration Bill Packed With Kickbacks, Waivers, “Stimulus” Spending



The “immigration bill” has now also been turned into a “stimulus bill.”

Special provisions for Alaskan fisheries have been included. (Funny, Alaska got a whole pile of money from the “Sandy Relief bill” too. They do love their pork up there.) Bernie Sanders got a pet project funded. Who knows what else is in there? The Senators sure as heck don’t know.

Sadly however, that won’t keep our “leaders” from voting for it. And let’s be honest. Most of them don’t even want to know what’s in the bill so long as they get their piece.

Click here for the article.

About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

Colorado House Passes Sweeping Gun Control Measures




Colorado House Passes Sweeping Gun Control MeasuresA couple days ago, it was reported that Democrats in the Colorado legislature were driving gun manufacturers out of the state because of gun and ammo restrictions that they were considering. And when those companies leave, it will leave hundreds of Coloradoans out of a job, and the state’s economy would be weaker.

Well, now they’ve gone and done it. It’s not law yet, as the proposals still have to be considered by the state senate. But the Democrat-controlled Colorado House just passed 4 gun control measures on Monday that addressed ammunition, background checks and guns in universities:

“The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31… The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online. Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums, and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks. Democrats eked out the closest vote on the background check measure, which passed on a 33-32 vote.”

If these measures become law, then criminals will be able to add Colorado colleges and stadiums to their list of “gun-free zones.” It would outlaw magazines with more than a 15-round capacity, but the mass murderers will still have access to 30-round or 100-round magazines. Or, he could be more law-abiding and own multiple 15-round magazines and switch them out when he had to. That would just be a minor inconvenience. So, once again, the law won’t prevent mass murders, but will only give criminals bent on mass murder the advantage.

Smart Meter Bills HB373 and SB283


Bill to Limit Grand Jury Foreperson Length FiledSource:

A bill has been filed in the State legislature to allow customers to opt out of smart meters, HB373 and SB283.

Here is a petition on the subject.

This website has some information on the subject and you can learn more about the subject through a web search.

Dr. Ken Monar discusses some of the problems that arise in trying to legislate a complicated matter where technology is ever changing.


Sirs, Madams:

Please consider signing on as cosponsors to the Bill by Womick and Ketron regarding the use of mandatory installation of so called “Smart Meters”.

Having read this proposal, I consider it extremely modest as I do not believe that the long term safety has been demonstrated for these devices. Passage of the as written Bill will at least help balance “interest” between the consumer and providers and give choice to informed customers.

If it were up to me, I would ban the technology as junk and a waste of money. (see below)

My Womick/Ketron Bill Comments

  1. Section A, item (3): “Specify gateway devices labeled “FCC” and functioning as radio base stations”, “Operating in frequency range XXX – XXXX MHz and in power range XXX-XXX mW”.
  2. Section B, item (5): ["Obtain data from a customer's smart meter gateway device more than once a month, unless otherwise requested by the customer."] “Obtain data on total energy use only. Reporting data is a joint contract between consumer and provider, of said consumer’s personal effects and that such effects be accessible by the consumer for review (for self assessment). Data collection frequency may be determined by the provider, but the signal intensity must be limited to several hundred feet and data collection may not be intrusive to the consumer. No aerial collection of data may ensue. Data must be encrypted and emitted only on “query” request by sampling unit. This provision shall be extended to both FCC labeled devices and RFID reporting meters.”
  3. Add: All the monies (after amortized costs) resulting from the savings in time, personnel, and pensions should be returned to the county budget in annual increments and alloted to debt reduction, reducing property taxes, or alloted to the general fund. Any such mass installations should be subject to vote (referendum) prior to roll-out.
  4. Add: The State of Tennessee will implement accelerated aging studies” under worse case scenarios of geometry and intensity to mimic lifetime exposure (using rats) of “Smart Meter” technologies. Medical waivers by doctors will be permitted.

Regarding (1), since the Fukushima incident, we are learning that it is vogue to change allowable dose exposure, possibly rendering “FCC” labeling or other operational feature maleable in future renditions.Unlike simple technologies you must specify what it is you are regulating, since the future applications far exceed simple device function and those applications are not yet on the Table. Regarding (2), the original wording might be too restrictive for either provider or customer to have more data. The replacement puts the onus on the customer on how to respond to data and limits collection to reasonable power emission commensurate with current collection technologies being implemented.  Regarding (3,) People are often meant to feel that these are not subject to public discussion and merely corporate decisions.  At the end of the day, irrespective of the money stream or debts entered into, the taxpayer is responsible for paying for these technologies. Regarding (4), because of the nature of EM radiation, I do not believe that this can be known in advance nor am I confident such studies have been done.

Many developing technologies have inherent issues related to privacy and, in some cases, forced self incrimination. The Smart Meters have potential health effects as each is considered a “radio station” and must be an FCC listed device. This could result in dozens of radio stations right in line with living space in high density housing situations, focused on some child’s head while sleeping. Typically, the intensity of radiation from point sources diminishes with the distance, squared.

Also, many of the new technologies have “collectivist aspects” to their function. Even my informed consent may result in someone else receiving the radiation. You will find in the end that the primary results (of these federal mandates and technology developments) are:

  • higher long term costs to consumers and small business
  • higher costs of repair
  • more frequent breakdown

This has been true for all types of new electronic circuitry as they are prone to static charge failures and voltage spikes. It is a consumer who can decide between the value added and the additional costs or dangers, not the government. Some people buy safe cars, some sport cars.

Here are just a few items for consideration as you debate and a few suggested modifications of current legislation being proposed

General Considerations for Debate

  1. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE: for any health effects which might reasonably be shown to result from the installation should be assigned a-priori.
  2. WHAT CAN READ SIGNALS: No ancillary devices on other public utilities in the vicinity of the RFID meters or smart meters (e.g. power, telephone, etc) may read the signals and that such signals should be encrypted. Doing so should be made a criminal offense according the US Constitution with respect to privacy (person, papers, and “effects” (i.e. your stuff))
  3. WHAT SIGNAL IS MEASURED: Such devices only report on quantities they measure. (e.g. a suitably designed water meter RFID might also report acoustic signals as water is an excellent medium).
  4. ARE THE DEVICES MORE EFFICIENT: Prior to rollout of any metering device technology, it must be shown to consume less energy than the device it is replacing, with respect to its operational procedures. Otherwise, utilities must refund the cost difference from any collective benefits ensuing.
  5. ARE DEVICES MORE ROBUST: Such devices should be more resistant to voltage spike than analog devices. Otherwise, it does not meet the engineering requirement of “continuous improvement”.
  6. WHEN DO THEY EMIT SIGNAL: All devices (RFID or Smart Meter) should use intermittent signaling. As I understand it, many utilities are using “always on” for the RFID meters so that they can drive by faster and not have to “query, then receive”. This will raise costs of operation, but utilities are not reporting those details to their customers.
  7. WHAT ELSE CAN THAT SPECTRUM BE USED FOR LOCALLY: You must consult the experts on the available spectrum the technology will utilize and examine future possible alternative use infringement.

Ken Monar
Maryville, TN 37803

Canadian Government killing online surveillance bill



By Laura Payton, CBC News

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says controversial Bill C-30 won’t go ahead

Government killing online surveillance bill Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says controversial Bill C-30 won't go ahead

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says the controversial Bill C-30, known as the online surveillance or warrantless wiretapping bill, won’t go ahead after Canadians opposed it. (Colin Perkel/Canadian Press)

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says the controversial Bill C-30, known as the online surveillance or warrantless wiretapping bill, won’t go ahead due to opposition from the public.

The bill, which was known as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, was designed to help police combat child pornography. But civil liberties and privacy groups — even the federal privacy commissioner — said the bill violated the rights of Canadians.

Opponents lobbied strenuously against C-30, saying it was an overly broad, “Big Brother” piece of legislation that would strip all Canadians of the right to privacy.

The bill would have required internet service providers to maintain systems to allow police to intercept and track online communications without a warrant.

Canadians rallied against the bill after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews famously told an opposition MP that he could “either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Those explosive comments outraged many Canadians and helped to galvanize the opposition to C-30.

“We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30, including the warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information or the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capability within their systems,” Nicholson said.

“We’ve listened to the concerns of Canadians who have been very clear on this and responding to that.”

OpenMedia, which waged a vigorous online campaign against C-30 through its website, hailed the decision to kill the bill.

“It came as a quite a surprise,” said Lindsey Pinto of

“It looks like the government has finally heard the voices of Canadians who have been expressing themselves online in stating that C-30 is invasive, costly and poorly thought out,” she said.

Nicholson made the announcement after introducing a bill to update provisions that would allow for warrantless phone tapping in emergencies.

Canadian law allows police to wiretap without authorization from a court when there is the risk of imminent harm, such as a kidnapping or bomb threat, but the Supreme Court last year struck down the law and gave Parliament 12 months to rewrite another one.

The new bill, C-55, would give peace officers the right to secretly intercept private communications without a warrant in relatively rare, urgent situations. Someone whose communications had been intercepted in situations of imminent harm would have to be notified by police within 90 days.

Read the bill here.

With files from The Canadian Press


Republished with permission


DOJ Calls It A Hit Piece: Frontline – The Untouchables



The Untouchables

Screen capture from video.

Watch The Untouchables on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Even a fiat currency and the casino game of fractional reserve standards are not enough to cover the never ending greed.  Banks use your deposited money plus imaginary reserve policy funds to make bad bets, and lose.  But who really lost?  The banks get bailed out by Washington D.C. criminals, you get foreclosed on and then you are responsible for the cost of the bailout.

Part 1 of 4.  To view complete please follow the link provided above.  Bernie Madoff and other smaller fish got constant mainstream media coverage while the big ponzi scheme rolls along with white glove treatment, as it seems only the Wall Street thieves approved by D.C. are officially too big to fail.

Your thoughts appreciated below.

Virginia Close To Banning Government Spy Drones



By Steve Watson

Activists warn public is being categorized as “low-grade enemy”

Photo credit:

Legislation to stave off the use of drones by law enforcement and government agencies in Virginia has advanced in the State Senate, as well as the House, bringing closer a two-year moratorium on the unmanned craft.

A House panel approved sending their version of the bill, HB2012 sponsored by Del. Benjamin L. Cline, to the floor by a 9-4 vote, while the Senate Courts of Justice, also endorsed the legislation Monday.

While the House bill advocates a blanket ban on the use of drones, the Senate version has an exception where missing person searches are concerned.

Delegate Todd Gilbert, who sponsored a similar drone bill last year said that strict limitations should be imposed upon the use of drones, including requiring search warrants for surveillance or collecting evidence for criminal investigations.

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia noted that “All of us are about to sacrifice our privacy to this new technology.”

“The Fourth Amendment should be the floor to protect our privacy, not the ceiling.” Gastañaga added.

At the House hearing, law enforcement groups argued that warrants may not be able to be obtained in time to use the technology effectively. Russell County Sheriff’s Office said it had already purchased two drones, and argued against the introduction of stipulations.

Last year, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell described warrantless drones as “great”, citing “battlefield successes”.

“If you’re keeping police officers safe, making it more productive and saving money… it’s absolutely the right thing to do.” McDonnell said on the deployment of drones in the State.

Residents seem to disagree, particularly in Charlottesville, where the City Council is considering making the city a no-drone zone.

Over the weekend, anti-drone activists led by resident David Swanson, held a rally, complete with a giant model of a drone, to educate more people on the matter and pressure the Council to act.

“They can put drones outside our windows, drones can listen in on our phone calls, drones can spy on us in ways that will be far too tempting to any police department and they’re already openly saying that’s what they need it for,” Swanson said.

“We have police departments across the country picking up the use of drones with tear gas, with rubber bullets to control crowds,” he added. “We don’t think we need to be controlled, we think such police departments need to be controlled.”

NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and Weather

Swanson added that the way the military uses drones overseas is a core reason to prohibit their use domestically.

“A government that would target and kill an American abroad would target and kill an American at home,” Swanson said, adding that “There’s this trend toward looking at the public as sort of a low-grade enemy.”

The anti-drone resolution will be debated at a City Council meeting tonight at 7p.m.

A new Congressional Research Service report published last week warned that drones could be used for stalking, voyeurism, and laws need to be amended to protect the rights of citizens.


Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’, and He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

Bill to Limit Grand Jury Foreperson Length Filed



Bill to Limit Grand Jury Foreperson Length FiledBy Tona

In the past I’ve written about the problems that exist within the Grand Juries of Tennessee and I spoke to Senator Mae Beavers about some of those problems.  She apparently listened, at least partially.

One problem is the length of time that a foreperson can serve, which is basically until the person dies if the Circuit Court Judge chooses.  While this bill doesn’t address the appointment process, it is a step in the right direction.  I do believe the 4 year time frame should be limited to a 2 years, because you should have the opportunity to go back to a different Grand Jury Foreperson before the statute of limitations runs out on crimes, but at least this bill stops the same person from serving for 20+ years as we have seen in several Counties.

This bill isn’t before a Committee yet, but when it is we need to support it.  Unfortunately, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey recently stripped Senator Mae Beavers from her Chairmanship on the the Senate Judiciary Committee and turned the leadership of the Committee over to attorneys, which is not good.

As far as I have seen Mae Beavers in action she ran a fair Committee, allowing all sides to state their positions even if she disagreed with them.  That has not been the case with Senator Kelsey.  When I watched him Chair a hearing, he cut the opposition off and ram-rodded the bill through making the hearing a dog and pony show.  When I spoke to Doug Overbey about Grand Jury problems, he was happy with the status quo.  Thus, I do not believe the change in leadership to be a good thing.

I’ll try to keep everyone informed when this bill is before Committees but if I don’t and you see it up for a hearing, please let me know and contact the members of the Committee urging their support.

Tennessee Introducing Major Gun Protection – NO Restrictions on Guns, Any Federal Law NULL AND VOID in Tennessee!




The Tennessee House and Senate have introduced bills that protect all guns in Tennessee.  It also makes any Federal Laws for gun control or bans – NULL AND VOID!

Sen. Beavers and Rep. Butt Introduce Strong New Legislation to Stop Gun Control

Sen. Mae Beavers and Rep. Sheila Butt introduced a bill Tuesday to amend the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act of 2009 so that it adds bold new protections for Tennessee firearms owners.  The original Firearms Freedom Act exempted from federal law and authority firearms that were manufactured, sold, and retained in Tennessee.

Going several steps further, SB 0250 and the companion bill HB 0248 provide protection for all firearms, even those not manufactured in Tennessee.  The bill states:

“The general assembly declares that any federal action prohibited by this chapter relating to firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition, whether made in Tennessee or not, is not authorized by the United States constitution and violates the restrictions contained therein and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state; that said federal action shall not be recognized by this state; and that said federal action is rejected by this state and shall be null and void and of no effect in this state.”


HB 0042 Filed to Stop Federal Gun Control in Tennessee

Today, Rep. Joe Carr unveiled his legislation to protect Tennesseans against a potential gun ban or registration scheme out of Washington, DC.  Sen. Joey Hensley has agreed to carry the bill in the Senate.  The new Tennessee bill is a verbatim copy of an earlier version of the Wyoming bill currently pending before their state legislature.

Tennessee’s HB 0042 provides for misdemeanor penalties like the earlier version of the Wyoming bill.  Because Rep. Carr specifically told the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center that he feels it is important that the states pass exactly the same bill with exactly the same verbiage, he is looking at filing an amendment to match to the latest version of the Wyoming legislation.

The bill, which is fully endorsed by the Tennessee Firearms Association, was specifically written to cover all of the points in the model legislation released by the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center and more.  It will block all of the following federal attempts at firearms regulation with Class B felony criminal penalties:
(1) Infringe on, ban, regulate, or restrict state government, local government or civilian ownership, transfer, possession or manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition in this state;
(2) Require any state government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition in this state to be registered or tracked in any manner; or
(3) Impose federal taxes, fees or any other charges on any state government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that are payable to any government entity.
Should any Tennesseans be prosecuted by the federal government for alleged firearms-related crimes, SB 0250/HB 0248 provides for this scenario as well.  The attorney general is authorized to provide defense for the accused and work to invalidate or nullify such federal actions.

‘Fiscal Cliff’ Vote Shows How Washington Really Works


Please note Ron Paul’s message regarding the site that this article was originally posted and linked below.

***Please note: This is the temporary home for my weekly column until my personal web page is up and running.***

1-9-2013 6-14-42 AMRon Paul’s Texas Straight Talk


By Ron Paul

Last week the Senate and House demonstrated again why their approval ratings are so low. The 154 page “fiscal cliff” bill was made available to Senators just three minutes before the vote was taken on the legislation. No one can read 154 pages in three minutes, so it is safe to assume that the legislation was passed without being read.

Then the House brought the lengthy and complicated bill to a vote just 22 hours after the text had been available, meaning a full reading of the legislation was not likely possible. This was a clear violation of the “three day rule” adopted by the 112th Congress, which in the name of transparency ordered the House to make legislation available to the public a full three days before a Floor vote.

Perhaps this race to a vote, amid cries of the end of the world without a solution to the manufactured crisis, explains why an even greater than usual amount of special-interest carve-outs made it into the bill.

Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution clearly states that “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” but as has been done many times, the Senate simply attached its bill to an existing House bill and claimed that this Constitutional requirement had been satisfied.

If the process was dishonest and unconstitutional, the content of the bill was even worse.

The “rescue” legislation was packed full of special tax deals for well-connected corporations with the money to hire high-profile lobbyists – usually those who have spent a good deal of time as legislators themselves.

The principle of tax cuts and breaks themselves are not the problem, however. It is incorrect to view any return of tax money to its rightful owner as money taken from the government. Wealth belongs to those who generate it not to government. However, while well-connected special interests like Hollywood and rum manufacturers were being granted targeted tax assistance, the vast majority of Americans were being hit with a significant tax increase in the form of higher payroll taxes. Rather than cut a dime from federal spending, this bill granted breaks to the corporate elites and paid for the “lost revenue” by passing the costs on to the rest of us.

The “fiscal cliff” bill also rescued other corporate interests. Included in the text was a nine-month extension of the 2008 Farm Bill. This is corporate welfare at its worst, spending billions to enrich big corporate farms with direct subsidies at the expense of small farmers — and the taxpayer.

Last week’s last minute deal was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to begin thinking about modest cuts in spending growth two months down the road. While there was much hand-wringing over the “draconian” cuts that would have been imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration would not have cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending would increase by $1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending would increase by $1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending, however.

I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the dangers posed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state. Hopefully this movement will continue to grow and force the politicians to reverse course before government spending, taxing, and inflation destroys our economy entirely.

Senate defies constitution again. House goes along with it.




House members rushing to pass Senate’s fiscal cliff bill Credits: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Every single member of Congress knows or should know the very basic rule stated in the US Constitution regarding which chamber can originate revenue raising bills (tax bills). But that seems to have not stopped any of the 535 members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives from once again proving that they have absolutely no intention of obeying even the most basic procedures for a tax bill becoming a legitimate law.

As many of us wrote about months ago, after the Supreme Court issued its ruling regarding Obamacare being declared a tax, millions of Americans should have been celebrating how Chief Justice Roberts had just in essence invalidated the entire bill. See my previous article, “Is Chief Justice Roberts actually sly as a fox?” That’s right. There should be absolutely NO reason for any state government or any business in America to be forced to move forward with any provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act.

Again, the constitution is very clear in this matter and every member of congress knows what type of bills each is allowed to originate. It is one of the most basic clauses in the US Constitution governing the actions of members of Congress.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution clearly states:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

After watching the deafening silence within the mainstream national news organizations and by all Democrats and Republicans in congress, I published a follow-up article as to possibly the political reasons none of them were going to even whisper the truth about Obamacare being dead in the water and can be found titled, “Demand Congress start telling the truth about Obamacare”.

As usual, there was no massive effort by We The People to demand that congress or anyone else elected to office start telling the truth about anything or even begin to adhere to our constitution for which they take an oath to obey, uphold and defend. So as a result, here we go again, all over again.

UPDATED PARAGRAPH: Unlike the Obamacare bill which was in every way a Senate bill and was not expected to ever be ruled a tax, the Senate worked out a “deal” with the Obama administration on their own version of the fiscal cliff bill which ILLEGALLY (referred to as “unconstitutionally” so as to not make it sound so bad) submitted a complete substitute tax bill knowingly in deceptive defiance to the supreme law of our land. In a late-night vote reported by the Washington Post, the House apparently went along and hurriedly passed the Senate’s version of the bill without time for any amendments by the House. This should have been the full content of the House bill with the Senate adding amendments and then going back again for another vote by the House and then back to the Senate for a final vote. In all intent and purposes this was a “Senate bill” regardless of what bill they had to gut out and substitute it with. The House would not have been voting last on a bill they were just seeing the language of for the first time if they REALLY originated its content.

In the case of Obamacare however, there is no arguing over details. It was a Senate bill that was later ruled a tax by the US Supreme Court so there was no need at the time of its passage to play switch-aroo or rope-a-dope with which bill the language would be slipped into. When it was ruled a tax, it was no longer a valid law which may explain one reason why there was so much insistence by the Obama administration that it should not be ruled a tax.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should realize by now that the fiscal cliff bill will not solve any of our financial woes. It should not even be spoken of as a band-aid as it is nothing but a theatrical performance. Our economy is still going over the ultimate cliff and time will tell just when that occurs. For now, a more serious issue should be to raise cane about congress boldly thumbing its nose at our constitution and placing themselves above the law. Do we really want them thinking we are all so ignorant that we just don’t know any better?

Writing as a child screaming in the wilderness: If we do not finally unite in insisting that our elected leaders obey our laws, then we deserve exactly the corrupt and tyrannical government that we surely will have coming our way. The constitution cannot police itself. It needs the masses to be united in demanding that it is obeyed or suffer the rightful and lawful consequences. Just tar and feathers at this point is not going to cut it.


, DC Conservative Examiner

Lori Stacey has been passionate about politics all her life. She started working on political campaigns going back to Ronald Reagan’s 2nd bid for the White House while growing up in Sacramento. In November 2010, she ran for Secretary of State of South Dakota for the Constitution Party. Lori…

Go to Top