Re: Whiny Loser un-American Rethuglicans Seek to Obstruct All Legislation and Make The President Fail

Don't look now Tom, but right now its the DEMOCRATS obstructing Obama.

Ooops!

On Dec 15, 7:21 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Whiny Loser un-American Rethuglicans Seek to Obstruct All Legislation
> and Make The President Fail
>
> On 12/15/10, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >     <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/> Whiny Loser
> > DemonRats Seek to Change Filibuster
> > Rules<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/whiny-loser-demonrats-s...>
> > *doctorbulldog <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/>* |
> > 15 December, 2010 at 11:51 am | Categories: Abuse of
> > Power<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?category_name=abuse-of-power>,
> > Communism <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?category_name=communism>,
> > Government <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?category_name=government>,
> > politics <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?category_name=politics> | URL:
> >http://wp.me/p1NPg-6MR
>
> > *Is there any doubt that these commie senators are in the middle of mounting
> > a coup d'etat to ensure they still hold the reins of power when they lose
> > their majority in 2012?*
>
> > *Funny, but I don't recall any kicking and screaming about the filibuster
> > rule from these freaks back when they were the minority and were using the
> > filibuster at the drop of a hat to block civil rights
> > legislation<http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuste...>in
> > the 1960s, nor when they used it to successfully block Bush's judicial
> > nominees:*
>
> > *Dems signal push for filibuster reform*
> > *By Michael O'Brien - 12/15/10*
>
> > Democrats will make an attempt to reform the Senate's filibuster rules, Sen.
> > Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Wednesday.
>
> > Brown joined other members of his party who have been signaling, in the
> > closing days of the lame-duck Congress, that their party is likely to seek
> > changes to longstanding Senate rules that require 60 votes (instead of a
> > simple majority of 51) to advance most pieces of legislation in the chamber.
>
> > *"Longstanding" Senate Rules that require 60 votes?  Give me a break! *
>
> > *It's only been about 30-some-odd years!  In case you have forgotten or were
> > too young to remember:  Prior to the 1970s, the filibuster required 67 votes
> > for cloture.  It was a powerful tool---equivalent to throwing a monkey
> > wrench into the works and bringing the Senate machinery to a complete
> > standstill.   Then, along came the Klu Klux Klan's Robert Byrd (
> > Demonrat---of course! ) who, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, reduced
> > the number of votes required for cloture from 67 down to 60; thereby, making
> > it easier to kill a filibuster and reducing it's monkey wrench-like impact
> > on the Senate . *
>
> > *You see, the Demonrats have been working on this communist coup d'etat for
> > over a hundred years, but the senate rules requiring only 60 votes for
> > cloture are, historically, a fairly recent development.*
>
> > **
> > "I think you're going to see attempts to do that," Brown said Wednesday
> > morning on MSNBC, referring to the prospects for filibuster reform.
>
> > The filibuster, or at least the implied threat of one, has been used to
> > great effect in the past two years by Senate Republicans to slow down
> > or *flat-out
> > block pieces of legislation favored by Democrats*.
>
> > *Like Health Care Deform?  Nope!  Not at all.  Do the math...*
>
> > Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a high-profile congressional liberal, is expected
> > to address the need for filibuster reform in a speech at the National Press
> > Club on Wednesday morning.
>
> > Read more of this
> > post<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/whiny-loser-demonrats-s...>
>
> > Add a comment to this
> > post<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/whiny-loser-demonrats-s...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/doctorbulldog.wordpress.co...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/26093/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2...>
>
> >   [image: WordPress]
>
> > WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> > Manage
> > Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> > Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> > Reach
> > out to your own subscribers with
> > WordPress.com.<http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> > *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
> >http://subscribe.wordpress.com
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Isn't Technology Wonderful

Guaranteed to keep a libtard occupied for daze. 

http://madmikesamerica.com/2010/12/isnt-technology-wonderful/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+madmikesamerica%2FYhiN+%28madmikesamericauptown%29

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Coulter: Like A Condom, The First Amendment Can't Always Protect You

Question: How does the United States obtain jurisdiction over Julian Assange to prosecute him under 18 U.S.C. 793(e)? To my knowledge, he has not violated any laws while on US soil.

On 12/15/2010 4:21 PM, Keith In Tampa wrote:

Like A Condom, The First Amendment Can't Always Protect You

by Ann Coulter 

Posted 12/15/2010 ET
Updated 12/15/2010 ET

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40615

First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks. 

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be getting around to WikiLeaks' proprietor, Julian Assange, just as soon as they figure out which law the New Black Panthers might have violated by standing outside a polling place with billy clubs. 

These legal eagles are either giving the press a lot of disinformation about the WikiLeaks investigation or they are a couple Elmer Fudds who can't find their own butts without a map. 

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's. 

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides: 

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ... 

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 

As is evident, merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony. 

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too! 

Depending on the facts adduced at trial, there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison. 

Classified information is valuable government property. 

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet? 

Assange's lawyer, naturally, wraps his client in the First Amendment, saying Assange "is entitled to First Amendment protection as publisher of WikiLeaks." 

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who wants Assange prosecuted -- bless her patriotic Democratic heart -- has responded to Assange's free speech defense by saying, "But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt." 

All this is completely irrelevant. 

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions. 

It's possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving national security information, just as it's possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving the Montgomery County (Ala.) public safety commissioner. 

This isn't that case. 

The government isn't trying to put a prior restraint on Assange's publication of the documents, as in the Pentagon Papers case (though it probably could have). It wouldn't be punishing Assange for his opinions. The government wouldn't be prosecuting Assange to force him to give up his sources -- and not only because we already know who his source is (a gay guy in "an awkward place"), but because it simply doesn't matter. 

Assange would be prosecuted for committing the crime of possessing and releasing classified national security documents that could do this country harm. The First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on whether Assange has committed this particular crime, so whether or not Assange is a "journalist" is irrelevant. 

The problem here is that people get their information from the media, which is written by journalists, and journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them. 

If a fully certified, bona fide, grade-A "journalist," rushing to get a story, swerves his car onto a sidewalk and mows down 20 pedestrians, he's committed a crime. It doesn't matter that he was engaged in the vital First Amendment-protected activity of news-gathering. 

If Paul Krugman shoots his wife because she's talking too much when he's engaged in the First Amendment activity of finishing another silly column about the economy, he's committed a crime. 

Journalists can't run red lights, they can't print Coca-Cola's secret formula, they can't torture sources for information, and -- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property. 

Fox News' Alan Colmes said he checked with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, who told him there's no case against Assange because the government can't punish "the disseminator of information." They should have been on Gawker's legal team! 

If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States, and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it, Assange committed a felony, and it wouldn't matter if he were Lois Lane, my favorite reporter. 

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded. 

Also, journalists can slander people at will. That ought to make them happy.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Looks, feels, and tastes like a realcigarette! No tar, No tobacco, No ash &No
smell !!
http://click.lavabit.com/ptk6mje594ypt7hhjohenk3foc89z4saopshwqrbjajisr9kyrtb/

--
I reserve the right to do as I please.

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice ..."
- U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)

"If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance."
- Ron Paul

Our courts will never be fair and just again until we force the courts to follow their own rules. Do not allow yourself to be ruled by tyrants. Learn how to control corrupt judges and crooked lawyers so you can get Justice! Learn to litigate: Buy and Study JURISDICTIONARY. The best course available for Pro Se and Pro Per litigants.

I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
Read the US Constitution

Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be governed are weak.

"We have plenty of rights in this country, provided you don't get caught exercising them."
- Terry Mitchell

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Coulter: Like A Condom, The First Amendment Can't Always Protect You

Nuff said.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

Like A Condom, The First Amendment Can't Always Protect You

by Ann Coulter 

Posted 12/15/2010 ET
Updated 12/15/2010 ET

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40615

First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks. 

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be getting around to WikiLeaks' proprietor, Julian Assange, just as soon as they figure out which law the New Black Panthers might have violated by standing outside a polling place with billy clubs. 

These legal eagles are either giving the press a lot of disinformation about the WikiLeaks investigation or they are a couple Elmer Fudds who can't find their own butts without a map. 

Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's. 

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides: 

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ... 

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 

As is evident, merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony. 

There's no exception for albinos with webpages -- or "journalists." Journalists are people, too! 

Depending on the facts adduced at trial, there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump, including 18 USC 641, which provides that any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison. 

Classified information is valuable government property. 

The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment, as if that matters. Is Assange a "journalist"? What kind of journalist? Who is a "journalist" in the world of the Internet? 

Assange's lawyer, naturally, wraps his client in the First Amendment, saying Assange "is entitled to First Amendment protection as publisher of WikiLeaks." 

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who wants Assange prosecuted -- bless her patriotic Democratic heart -- has responded to Assange's free speech defense by saying, "But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt." 

All this is completely irrelevant. 

New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government, and they're considered "journalists." That doesn't mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species, refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isn't a Star Trek "energy field" that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions. 

It's possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving national security information, just as it's possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving the Montgomery County (Ala.) public safety commissioner. 

This isn't that case. 

The government isn't trying to put a prior restraint on Assange's publication of the documents, as in the Pentagon Papers case (though it probably could have). It wouldn't be punishing Assange for his opinions. The government wouldn't be prosecuting Assange to force him to give up his sources -- and not only because we already know who his source is (a gay guy in "an awkward place"), but because it simply doesn't matter. 

Assange would be prosecuted for committing the crime of possessing and releasing classified national security documents that could do this country harm. The First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on whether Assange has committed this particular crime, so whether or not Assange is a "journalist" is irrelevant. 

The problem here is that people get their information from the media, which is written by journalists, and journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws don't apply to them. 

If a fully certified, bona fide, grade-A "journalist," rushing to get a story, swerves his car onto a sidewalk and mows down 20 pedestrians, he's committed a crime. It doesn't matter that he was engaged in the vital First Amendment-protected activity of news-gathering. 

If Paul Krugman shoots his wife because she's talking too much when he's engaged in the First Amendment activity of finishing another silly column about the economy, he's committed a crime. 

Journalists can't run red lights, they can't print Coca-Cola's secret formula, they can't torture sources for information, and -- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists can't misappropriate lost property. 

Fox News' Alan Colmes said he checked with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, who told him there's no case against Assange because the government can't punish "the disseminator of information." They should have been on Gawker's legal team! 

If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States, and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it, Assange committed a felony, and it wouldn't matter if he were Lois Lane, my favorite reporter. 

As I have noted previously, the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded. 

Also, journalists can slander people at will. That ought to make them happy.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: ACTION ALERT: Tell the Senate and House to Pass DADT Repeal NOW!

Still fun to kick around. For eg., if the House were to impeach a
senator, could the Senate turn around and tell them to shut the fuck
up, since the constitution also explicitly states that each house is
responsible for enforcing its own rules and disciplining its own
members. And would that go for VPOTUS too, since he is also a senate
member?

I just kinda dig this shit.

On Dec 15, 7:23 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has to be a crime of moral terpitude or an act of treason to bring up
> impeachment proceedings against a Senator, a Representative,  the President
> or Vice-President.   The same applies in most States.
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:19 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually, the House can impeach a Senator.  Thats what makes it so
> > interesting, because after a Senator is impeached, he would have to be
> > tried in his very own Senate.
>
> > Only happened once, in 1798, and the Senate expelled him, rendering
> > the impeachment moot.
>
> > Equally fun would be a VP impeachment, since VPOTUS is the president
> > of the Senate.  Thats never happened.
>
> > Like I said, "intruiging"
>
> > On Dec 15, 7:00 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > First, there is no mechanism for me to bring impeachment proceedings
> > against
> > > a Senator from Florida.  All we could do, as the people of Florida, is
> > ask
> > > for a recall election.
>
> > > I know of nothing really, that would constitute actual treason by a
> > Senator
> > > that votes for illegal immigrants being granted amnesty, although in my
> > > personal opinion, it is detrimental to the United States, and I believe
> > that
> > > it is very close to treasonous.
>
> > > This is what folks like Tommy don't understand.  Tom is on a crusade for
> > > homosexual parades and sexual kicks, not caring what this detrimental
> > > legislation could potentially do that is harmful to our Nation.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Don't be so quick to assume what Keith means.  It is an EXTREMELY
> > > > intriguing question
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 6:49 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Keith would likely impeach President Obama and all Democrats, whom he
> > > > > hates and lies about, calling them all "Marxists." Essentialy, Keith
> > > > > is a Fascist.
>
> > > >  > On 12/15/10, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Whom would you impeach Keith?
>
> > > > > > On Dec 15, 6:44 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> I wrote to both of my Senators, threatening to start an
> > impeachment
> > > > drive
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> they vote for the Dream Act, and illegal immigration.
>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > Great Greg!
> > > > > >> > Scott Brown is on the DADT repeal fence, so please keep on
> > > > contacting
> > > > > >> > him.
>
> > > > > >> > On 12/15/10, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > I've already contacted Scott Brown.  Twice in fact.
>
> > > > > >> > > On Dec 14, 2:08 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >> This is My brand new article hot off the presses.
>
> > > > > >> > >> Source:
>
> > > >http://www.actonprinciples.org/2010/12/14/action-alert-tell-the-senat.
> > > > > >> > ..
>
> > > > > >> > >> ACTION ALERT: Tell the Senate and House to Pass DADT Repeal
> > NOW!
>
> > > > > >> > >> -By Tommy News
>
> > > > > >> > >> Reps. Hoyer and Patrick Murphy have announced they will
> > introduce
> > > > a
> > > > > >> > >> free-standing companion bill to the Lieberman/Collins
> > stand-alone
> > > > > >> > >> bill
> > > > > >> > >> to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the Senate. House
> > passage
> > > > could
> > > > > >> > >> increase pressure on the Senate to move on repeal to send the
> > > > bill to
> > > > > >> > >> the President's desk. We all need to increase our pressure on
> > > > both
> > > > > >> > >> houses now and whip these important votes for DADT repeal
> > now.
>
> > > > > >> > >> Call, Fax, Webform, and Send Postal Mail to your Congress
> > member
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > >> your two Senators All this week and next. Get Contact info
> > > > > >> > >> atwww.congress.orgCongressMainSwitchboard202-224-3121
>
> > > > > >> > >> The failed and discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell military
> > > > policy
> > > > > >> > >> must be repealed. More than 14,000 service members have been
> > > > fired
> > > > > >> > >> under the law since 1994. This repeal must be done during the
> > > > lame
> > > > > >> > >> duck session, while Democrats still control the House and
> > Senate,
> > > > or
> > > > > >> > >> the Republican Grand Obstructionist Party of No will likely
> > block
> > > > > >> > >> repeal for years to come.
>
> > > > > >> > >> In addition to DADT Repeal, also ask for a repeal of DOMA,
> > and
> > > > > >> > >> passage
> > > > > >> > >> of ENDA and UAFA, and introduction of The American Equality
> > Bill
> > > > AEB
> > > > > >> > >> for Civil Rights equality during the lame duck session. Then
> > pass
> > > > > >> > >> this
> > > > > >> > >> on.
>
> > > > > >> > >> This is a list of key Senators. Please call them if you are
> > one
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > >> their constituents. Please feel free to share this event with
> > > > others
> > > > > >> > >> who are willing to step up and do their part. Call your
> > senator
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > >> thank them if they support repeal.
>
> > > > > >> > >> We're still not 100% sure that the 60 pro-repeal Senators
> > will
> > > > > >> > >> support
> > > > > >> > >> the stand-alone Lieberman/Collins bill, so let's keep those
> > calls
> > > > > >> > >> flowing in. Target list is below.
>
> > > > > >> > >> Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): 202-224-6665 (supports repeal, but
> > mixed
> > > > > >> > >> signals on the stand-alone bill)
>
> > > > > >> > >> George Voinovich (R-OH): 202-224-3353 (no position)
>
> > > > > >> > >> Olympia Snowe (R-ME): 202-224-5344 (no position)
>
> > > > > >> > >> Richard Lugar (R-IN): 202-224-4814 (no position)
>
> > > > > >> > >> Judd Gregg (R-NH): 202-224-3324 (no position)
>
> > > > > >> > >> Scott Brown (R-MA): 202-224-4543 (supports repeal, but has
> > not
> > > > made a
> > > > > >> > >> position clear yet on the stand-alone bill)
>
> > > > > >> > >> Kit Bond (R-MO): 202-224-5721 (no position)
>
> > > > > >> > >> Mark Kirk (R-IL): 202-224-2854 (no position)
>
> > > > > >> > >> Joe Manchin (D-WV): 202-224-3954 (no position, but mixed
> > signals
> > > > on
> > > > > >> > >> repeal)
>
> > > > > >> > >> –Harry Reid (D-NV); (202) 224-3542
>
> > > > > >> > >> –Carl Levin (D-MI); (202) 224-6221…
>
> > > > > >> > >> –Susan Collins (R-ME); (202) 224-2523
>
> > > > > >> > >> –Mark Pryor (D-Ark.); (202) 224-2353
>
> > > > > >> > >> –Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark); (202) 224-4843
>
> > > > > >> > >> –Judd Gregg (R-NH); (202) 224-3324
>
> > > > > >> > >> –Lisa Murkowski (R-AK); (202) 224-6665
>
> > > > > >> > >> –The Senate Switch Board (202) 224-3121
>
> > > > > >> > >> THE MESSAGE FROM REPEAL ADVOCATES TO REID, LEVIN, GATES,
> > OBAMA:
>
> > > > > >> > >> –"Call the defense bill up in a bipartisan way to bring on a
> > > > handful
> > > > > >> > >> of Republicans who we will need to pass the bill.
>
> > > > > >> > >> It is absolutely essential that we contact Senator Harry Reid
> > of
> > > > > >> > >> Nevada and the White House to let them know how important
> > this
> > > > is.
> > > > > >> > >> Senator Reid's number is 202-224-3542. The White House
> > > > switchboard is
> > > > > >> > >> 202-456-1414. The White House also has a comment line at
> > > > > >> > >> 202-456-1111.
>
> > > > > >> > >> Think of the service members who are required to serve in
> > > > silence.
> > > > > >> > >> Think of their families and loved ones who have to live in
> > the
> > > > > >> > >> shadows
> > > > > >> > >> simply because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Does it
> > make
> > > > any
> > > > > >> > >> sense to you that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still a law in the
> > USA
> > > > –
> > > > > >> > >> the land of the free and home of the brave?
>
> > > > > >> > >> Call, Fax, Webform, and Send Postal Mail to your two Senators
> > and
> > > > > >> > >> your
> > > > > >> > >> Congress member All this week and next. Get Contact info
> > > > > >> > >> atwww.congress.orgCongressMainSwitchboard202-224-3121
>
> > > > > >> > >> Take further action here:
>
> > > > > >> > >>http://www.sldn.org/action
>
> > > > > >> > >> Source:
>
> > > >http://www.actonprinciples.org/2010/12/14/action-alert-tell-the-senat.
> > ..
>
> > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > >> > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > >> > > * Visit our other community
> > > > > >> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > <http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > <http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > > >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > > >> > Have a great day,
> > > > > >> > Tommy
>
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > >> > For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > >> > * Visit our other community
> > > > > >> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > <http://www.politicalforum.com/><
> > > >http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > > >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > <http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > > Have a great day,
> > > > > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.