.~Javier Plumey~.|Fatih, Technology, Politics, Whatever.

I recently sent a fax to Congressman Robert Wexler regarding his verbal assault on VP nominee Governor Sarah Palin:

Mr. Wexler,

As a constituent in your district I wanted to tell you that I am deeply embarassed and vividly enraged at the vile comments you have made regarding Governor Sarah Palin. In a recent interview you said that she “aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice in American politics.” You have also invoked the name of Adolf Hitler and the phrase “Nazi sympathizer.”

Your statement was not only cruel and misleading, but also incorrect. A statement on John McCain’s Web site says Palin actually worked for the Steve Forbes campaign in 2000. Furthermore, to draw this conclusion from seeing that she wore a Pat Buchanan pin one day and then to speak openly, using such strong language, is both shameful and reflects very negatively on your professionalism and personal integrity.

I understand that you are assisting Senator Obama’s presidential campaign in Florida, but is it worth drawing such negative criticism to yourself simply for the cause of his election. Wouldn’t you rather be putting your best foot forward, instead of in your mouth?

A little good news today, as it has been reported that the California Supreme Court has unanimously thrown out a suit to strike Proposition 8 from California’s ballot in November.

At least now the future of marriage in California is up to the citizens, and not the courts!

Also, in related news, Mormon church leaders will ask its California members to join the amendment effort in California. According to AP:

A June 20 letter sent to Mormon congregation bishops and signed by
church president Thomas S. Monson and his two top counselors calls upon
Mormons to donate “means and time” to the ballot measure.

The church will work with a coalition of churches and other
conservative groups that put the California Marriage Protection Act on
the Nov. 4 ballot to assure its passage, the letter states.

“The church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are
unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and
the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His
children,” the four paragraph letter states.

I may have some fundamental issues with the Mormon church, but this is good news that more people are banding together to preserve marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18

This is exactly the kind of thing that the liberals want, to completely run the country. Now they want to own the nation’s oil refineries. Outside of the Army can you think of a SINGLE government organization that does its job well? Hmm…Medicare, SSA, Department of Justice, TSA? Now they want to control the supply of oil and thus the economy?

This is nothing but a power move. Nothing good can come it? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the government owning our energy resources? IT DOESN’T! This government we have, run by liberal democrats, wants to control every aspect of our lives. Bring on socialism, because we’re not far away!

I just got an email response to my letter to the office of Senator Mel Martinez. It looks like another canned response, but here it is anyway. This was in response to my previous letter:

My letter to Senator Mel Martinez (FL)

Thank you for contacting me regarding America’s Climate Security Act. I appreciate hearing  from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

On October 18, 2007, Senator Lieberman introduced America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191). This bill would create an absolute cap on total emissions from all covered entities including the electric power,
transportation, industry, and commercial sectors with the goal of reducing
greenhouse gases. This cap would be lowered over time through 2050, and a market would be created to sell and trade emission allowances. On December 5, 2007, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported out a revised version of S. 2191, and further action is expected on the legislation in the 110th Congress.

I believe that the threat of climate change is real, and I am working with my
colleagues in the Senate to regulate and reduce greenhouse emissions. As we consider climate change legislation, we need to ensure that the laws we pass will in fact reduce carbon emissions and lessen the threat of catastrophic climate change. Additionally, we need to consider and attempt to mitigate any negative effects the new laws would have on our economy, energy prices, and Americans living on fixed incomes.

The United States cannot solve this problem alone, and similar efforts in China and India are critical to combating this threat. However, our country can provide needed leadership and technological innovation for the international community, and, as one of the world’s largest energy consumers, it is time for the United States to accept this responsibility. The choices we make now in dealing with climate change may be some of the most significant environmental and economic decisions of our generation. I assure you that I am committed to passing legislation to counter the threat posed by global climate change, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers S. 2191 or similar legislation.

I think I am going to load up S. 2191 and take a look at these carbon emission allowances. I’ll report my findings later tommorow.

I am in the midst of corresponding with Mr. Robert Wexler, Congressman from Florida regarding the proposed constitutional amendment H.J. RES. 89 that would define marriage on a FEDERAL LEVEL. Here’s the dialog, I’ll update as often as we (me and whomever is sending back these replies) continue. The formatting of this looks weird, but it’s all there:

My Original Fax:

RE: Support H.J. RES. 89!

The American people want to protect marriage from activist judges!

I am very disappointed that the Democratic Party has endorsed homosexual marriage. I
urge you to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89, the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008,
which would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. Our families and children need this constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

I realize that there are some minority factions of our country that desire the
status of marriage between same-sex couples. However, it is the OVERWHELMING
opinion of Americans that marriage is between a man and a woman. Do not bow to
the special interests of a minority. This is NOT a civil rights issue, but
rather one of choice. Please side with the MAJORITY of Americans and co-sponsor
this bill.

Here is the reply I got via email:

Dear Mr. Plumey:

Thank you for expressing your thoughts about the proposed constitutional
amendment that would define marriage on a federal level, H.J. Res. 89 in this
Congress.

This amendment has been debated numerous times in the past few years. As you may know, on June 7, 2006, the Senate soundly rejected the amendment in a procedural vote, which received only 49 of the 60 votes needed to end debate on the issue. Sixty-seven votes would have been necessary to approve the constitutional amendment. On July 18, 2006, the House then voted on this amendment (H.J.Res. 88) in spite of the Senate’s prior defeat of the measure.

H.J.Res. 88 failed to receive the requisite two-thirds majority by a vote of
236 to 187. The House had already gone on record this session opposing such a proposal; on September 30, 2005 the House voted on H.J.Res. 106, a prior version of the marriage amendment. As with H.J.Res. 88, H.J. Res 106 failed, receiving 227 votes, nearly 50 fewer than needed.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states,

“Full faith and credit shall
be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” HOWEVER, in 1996, 104th Congress passed the   “Defense of Marriage Act,” which modifies Article IV, Section 1 such     that no state is required to recognize the same sex marriages of any other state. The Defense of Marriage Act became Public Law 104-199 and currently stands under Chapter 115 of title 28 in US Code.

For your reference, I have included the most relevant portion of the act below:

Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a
relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage
under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right
or claim arising from such relationship.”

This provision has allowed each state to decide for its citizens how to define marriage and does not require any other state to recognize its marital unions.

On an issue that is so divisive for America and since each state is able to make this determination based on the will of the state, I do not see a need to make a change at the present time.

Rest assured that I will continue to monitor this important issue. Thank you
again for taking the time to write. Please feel free to contact me anytime
if I may be of help to you.

Interesting, and while I would normally agree with this position, the fact is that the people who are voting in these states are not having their voices heard. Case in point: the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to overrule the majority of the people who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Here’s my followup response:

RE: Your email response to my fax inquiry re: Support H.J. RES. 89!

Thank you for the prompt and courteous reply to my inquiry regarding this proposed
amendment. I understand that under The Defense of Marriage Act no state is
required to give effect to another’s state’s definition of marriage. However, I
feel that there is one very important aspect that is not being discussed: a
federal amendment to the Constitution is the only way to guarantee and protect
the status of marriage so that activist judges cannot overrule the desires of
the voters. The courts in many states want to force this lifestyle on voters and citizens who do not want it. Take, for example, the recent actions of the California Supreme Court.

Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can protect the will of the people, which
throughout the entire United States, is a positive affirmation of the
sanctity of marriage between a man and woman.

Your responsibility as a representative of the citizens of South Florida is to ensure that our opinions are not overruled by activist judges who have their own agenda, outside of the scope of the will of the people.

Furthermore, we must also consider the considerable and unnecessary misuse of millions of dollars in litigation it will cost states to have to continually defend the will of the people.

This amendment is the right choice for America because it will protect the right of every citizen to have a say in the way our country is run.

Again, I implore you to support H.J. RES. 89. Supporting this amendment is to support the
will of the people. Thank you for listening.

This is a fantastic graphic indicating the regulatory apparatus that would have to be implemented to cover the regulatory requirements as set forth in the Lieberman-Warner global warming legislation. Anyone who blindly accepts that we should approve this bill, without amendment and discussion needs to have their head examined. Courtesy of www.heritage.org:

Here’s a quick summary of why this legislature is a bad idea, courtesy of GOPUSA:

This legislation will create an unprecedented tax on industry that will profoundly change every area of the American economy.

Under
a system of cap and trade the government would set a limit on emissions
that declines every year. The goal of Warner-Lieberman is to return to
2005 levels by 2012, and to further reduce that number by 30% by 2030.
Companies affected will be awarded emission credits, which can be
bought, sold and traded to other companies.

Cap and trade is an indirect tax that will hamper the economy and will be passed on to consumers through price increases.

This
new tax gives politicians unprecedented control over business with the
ability to favor one group over others. It will create an opportunity
for corruption and fraud to run rampant.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce put together a great chart
on the regulatory apparatus that would be needed to implement the
economy-killing Lieberman-Warner global warming legislation. Not only
would this be a massive expansion of government, but it would also have
a devastating impact on states.

I’ll try and cover the points, if and when this ever comes up again. It’s not likely to be approved, at least not in this Congress. But since both McCain and Obama have made it a priority to help “clean up the environment’, I’m sure this thing will rear its ugly head again in the near future.

Here’s a recent letter I wrote to Senator Martinez of Florida (my home state) in response to this video (See the video below):

Senator Martinez,

I just viewed your speech to the Senate on how the Congress leadership should handle the rising cost of energy. I think your points were right on and I wanted to show you my support of your work.

In particular, the use of American innovation and technology, I think, will ultimately lead us out of this issue. A diminished, or completely removed, dependency on foreign fuel sources will do wonders for our economy and the political status of America throughout the world and the Middle East region.

I look forward to hearing more from you about this subject and I hope to see you represent Florida’s interest in the rapidly growing field of Cellulosic Ethanol as well as in the use of other bio waste in the production of energy.

I would also encourage you to take the time to explore the use of advanced photovoltaic surfaces that can be used on roads and highways to generate electricity from the Sun and heat for which Florida is famous.

Thank you for your work,

Senator Martinez On Rising Energy Costs

Well, the quasi-socialists liberals running our government continue to me amaze me with their brazen agenda.

What is ENDA? ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that is being moved through Congress. So it sounds like a nice thing, right? Isn’t it a good thing that there isn’t any discrimination in the work place? Yes, it is, but it’s already been done. There’s already a law that prevents that. In fact there are several laws that prevent employers (most of them, anyway) from discriminating in the workplace based on an employee’s race, nationality, color, or creed. Check out http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

So why do we need another one? Well the liberals think that people should not be discriminated againt based on their sexual orientatation and preferences.

Why is this bad?

According to the American Family Association:

It [ENDA] would grant special consideration on the basis of “sexual orientation” that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.

ENDA violates employers’ and employees’ Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their deeply held beliefs into account when making personnel decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people’s lives.

ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.

It’s obvious that the real agenda behind the innocuously named Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a push to enshrine homosexuality in national policy. This dangerous legislation would dramatically expand the government’s reach into your work place and create unnecessary work-place conflicts and lawsuits. ENDA is a sweeping employer mandate to create special new legal protections based on “sexual orientation” (or “perceptions”).

Although religious organizations are exempt, I have three main issues with the legilslation:

1. It promotes an unhealthy lifestyle. The gay and lesbian lifestyle should not be a basis for discrimination. Perhaps there is a good reason why most of America disproves of the gay lifestyle? Perhaps they should pass a law that an employer can’t discriminate on the basis of other lifestyle choices? Hm…can you be fired from a meat plant if you’re a vegetarian?

2. It promotes more infringement of the government into the private sector. Another law, with more lawyers looking for cash, more lawsuits, more fees, more forms, more of everything.

3. It will open the door to more discussion and use of sex in workplace politics. If people aren’t talking about sexual orientation in the worklace, there will be few issues related to it. In short, we don’t need this act.

From my AFA-generated letter to my Florida Sentators:

The case has not been made that systemic and widespread discrimination justifies a new legally protected class. Don’t you think that you have a right to work without being subjected to sexual expressions, political agendas and other non-work related conduct? For example, as employers prepare to comply with the legislation and guard against frivolous claims, employees will be trained to be more “sensitive” to gay and lesbian co-workers and pressured to embrace and promote all values, even those that violate their own religious or personal convictions.

Technorati Tags: politics