Congressman Jim Moran, D-8th, Virginia

When you read the above quote, it’s not possible to understand the level of absurdity just from the words spoken. You might think that Rep. Moran is referring to a johnny-come-lately opponent with no experience in public life or service to his community or country. However, the individual Rep. Moran refers to is his Republican challenger, Col. Patrick Murray (US Army-Ret.) – are you starting to wonder about the statement above? Colonel Murray’s service in the military was quite distinguished, covering 24 years and deployment to four different combat zones.

FYI, the “they” referenced above is “Republicans”. Bashing Republicans is standard fare for Rep. Moran, but how in the world can anyone, even someone as reality-challenged as him, claim Col. Murray doesn’t have “any kind of public service.” Well, just a short time after this head-scratcher, Mr. Moran sneers, “Of course, for 24 years he’s taken a government check …” Ah-hah, so Col. Murray has served our country in uniform (for 24 years), protected our freedoms (for 24 years), got shot at by foreign combatants (more than once) and for all of that time he has “taken a government check”. We’ll leave it to you to determine the Congressman’s motives and/or prejudices, but suffice it to say that he doesn’t believe risking one’s life for one’s country is as important as determining to “earmark the shit out of it”, a Moran quote from a few years ago, describing what he would do if given a chairmanship of an appropriations subcommittee. Profligate spending of our tax dollars, hyper-partisanship, bashing veterans and years of questionable activities are what this member of Congress describes as appropriate “public service”. We’d suggest that the service Colonel Murray has performed for his country makes what Jim Moran does look like a common shell game con.

So, for bashing a distinguished veteran as a campaign tactic and questioning all veterans’ service to their country, we say to Rep. James Moran, with disgust and disbelief,

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”

What? We hope it doesn’t appear that we are beating the “climate change/global warming” meme to death, but this quote is just too precious to pass up. It came during an interview with members of the editorial staff of West Virginia’s Register-Herald newspaper. From the context of the questions regarding “global climate change”, it is clear that Rep. Rahall is in the camp of those that believe man-made climate change is a serious threat. We therefore have to wonder about his statement above. Rep. Rahall does understand (please don’t let your young children read what comes next) that Santa Claus really “doesn’t exist”, right?

We expect his feelings have to do with the idea that Macy’s during the month of December is a wonderful, Christmassy place to be or maybe he has seen “Miracle on 34th Street” one too many times, but this seems like an odd way to put forth the consensus/science-is-settled argument of catastrophic global warming theorists. Indeed, from the perspective of those considered “climate skeptics”, this statement in some ways seems right on the mark – that is, like Santa Claus, “climate change” doesn’t exist.

Any serious student of the climate sciences understands that the climate has changed, many times and dramatically so, over the centuries and millenia, so technically Rep. Rahall’s intented logic is correct, but we thank him for giving us a brief chuckle and say,

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”

“Oh no she didn’t say that (they should blow people up)!”

“What to do with those people [climate change skeptics] … maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” – 10:10 Founder and Film Maker Franny Armstrong

Yes, you read that correctly – one of Britain’s largest newspapers and an internationally known activist and filmmaker have advocated the maiming and killing of children and those they disagree with via a reprehensible short film titled, “No Pressure”. Now before you start shaking your head that we don’t understand irony or edginess, or that we lack a sense of humor, let’s make it clear what we are talking about here. In the name of “stabilizing global emissions” and “saving the world”, a “mini-movie” has been made that depicts, in graphic fashion, a teacher, boss, soccer coach, and studio tech pressing a red button that incinerates others that disagree with them about the need to “cut their carbon emissions”. This repulsive film is gratuitously gory, sickeningly preachy, but most important, tries to instill a sense of humor in the idea that one can be summarily executed for disagreeing with others about a political/environmental position.

I think the best way to proceed is to have you view the piece. Here it is:

As mentioned before, we’re sure some of you are snickering and wondering how we could be so obtuse as to not get the humor and irony of such an inciteful film about such an important topic. Well, if you find this little movie provocative or moving or anything other than patently offensive, shame on you. Whether you believe in the idea that humans are adversely affecting the climate and need to cut their CO2 emissions or are skeptical about these claims, we should all agree that having a laugh about blowing up children or co-workers is not funny, it’s just sick.

It strikes us that those who profess to be progressive or liberal and who might be concerned about “carbon emissions” are also the ones that preach to all of us about the need for “tolerance” in all things. Tolerance of other races, religions, sexual preferences and other lifestyle choices is as important and obvious as loving our family. However, tolerance of political, enviromental or policy goals that are at odds with theirs is grounds for … what? – shunning, ostracizing, violence, murder? Please don’t preach to us about tolerance if you in any way can condone this shocking, gore-filled, hateful piece of “cinema”.

The founder of the group that made this film, 10:10, is a woman named Franny Armstrong. Part of her justification for making this film is that “we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions” and that “300,000 real people … now die each year from climate change”. Ms. Armstrong may be woefully misinformed about the facts, but the likelihood is that she is just telling a bald-faced lie to promote her agenda. Neither of these statements are truthful in any way and they continue a campaign by climate change alarmists to lie, cheat and steal to push forth their agenda to control our lives, wreck our economies, and prevent developing nations from raising their populations out of grinding poverty.

For sinking to new lows in an already deceitful campaign to misinform the world about our ever-changing climate, we emphatically say:

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”

“How can it be appropriate to change the legal mechanism for filling a vacancy after that vacancy has occurred?”

“Oh yes he did say that!”

=================================

Can Massachusetts Do That?

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

While I agree with the thoughts expressed in the Aug. 29 editorial “Filling a Void,” it did not get to the most relevant issue regarding filling the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

So Massachusetts law calls for a special election, but Democrats want to change the law to allow the governor to name an interim senator. How can it be appropriate to change the legal mechanism for filling a vacancy after that vacancy has occurred? Wouldn’t this be a variation of an unconstitutional “ex post facto” law, since the process would be changed retroactively — after the action that triggers that process has taken place?

Arlington (Virginia)

=================================
So to those Massachusetts legislators who wish to change the law and thwart the rights of the public to vote for their U.S. Senator, we say:

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”

The statement above is from a letter sent to parents of students at this institution of higher learning (and was received by an “ONYDST” staffer). We will not state which institution, in the interest of confidentiality and with the understanding that something similar is probably being received by parents of students at a number of other schools. You may not entirely get the gist of what this letter is saying from the quote above, so here it is: the University will not be sending grades to parents that are footing the bill for their children to attend this school. “Oh no, did they really say that?”

According to the letter, “Upon a student’s matriculation into an undergraduate program … regardless of the student’s age, those rights [access to the child's education records] transfer to the student.” We are certainly in favor of granting a level of responsibility to our children, especially since the large majority of undergraduate students have reached the age of majority – 18 years. However, the idea that parents should be forbidden from viewing their child’s grades, when they are paying for the child’s education, strikes us as being a step too far.

Apparently all of this springs from a federal law, know as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA was enacted by Congress to protect the privacy of student educational records and one key element states that schools must have written permission from the student in order to release any information from a student’s educational record. In general, this is a very good idea and prevents the release of this type of information to unknown parties. However, the Act does not specifically bar parental access to a dependent student’s educational records, but specifies that there be clearly delineated policies and procedures for the disclosure of these records. This is all somewhat technical and lawyerly, so we won’t belabor it. We will say, however, that it seems the onus is on the institutions to come up with policies and procedures that are understood by all; that prevent access to any student records by unauthorized, non-family entities; but that allow access to educational records to dependent students and their parents.

On a side note, an interesting additional quote is this: “This policy reflects the University’s view that students should be treated as responsible adults … [emphasis added by us]” It seems that if the University views their undergraduate students as adults; and if state and federal laws hold these adults responsible for signing contracts, committing criminal acts, and joining the military; then these same adults should be able to responsibly enjoy an alcoholic beverage. But that is a whole other discussion …

So we will send a dual message to the federal lawmakers and bureaucrats who crafted an Act that puts colleges and universities in a legal bind regarding the interaction between students and their parents; and to the institutions who can’t find the ability to create a set of policies and procedures for parents that would allow commen-sense access to the educational records which are paid for with their dollars:

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”

Did a veteran member of Congress say there is no need to read a bill which is being debated and on which he will be voting? Did he say he would not be obligated to understand “what it means”? Oh yes, he really did!

Rep. Conyers made the above remarks during a speech at the National Press Club this week and seemed quite smug and self-satisfied after making them. We watched the video of this quote, and after lifting our collective jaws off the floor, an “ONYDST” researcher said, “I bet very few congressmen ever read those bills. I give Conyers some credit for stating the truth, even though it was stupid for him to say publicly.” That may be a valid point, but for the average American, the idea that a member of Congress would not read a bill before voting on it seems absolutely outrageous. However, Rep. Conyers is not the only member of the House leadership who feels that reading and understanding all of a complicated piece of legislation is necessary.

During hearings for the “cap-and-trade” bill, an exchange occurred between Representatives Joe Barton, R-TX and Henry Waxman, D-CA. Rep. Barton was raising an issue about a particular item in the bill. He asked Rep. Waxman, “Did you know that was in this bill?” Waxman hesitated and then replied, “You asking me?” Barton confirmed that he was asking the committee chairman a question. Waxman then stated, “I certainly don’t claim to know everything that’s in this bill. I know that we left it to … the scientists … That’s what I know, but I don’t know the details.” This bill was huge (at the time of this hearing, about 900 pages), so it might be understandable that a member of Congress might not fully understand all of the details prior to the completion of committee hearings – except for the fact that it was this member’s legislation (cosponsored with Ed Markey, D-MA – Waxman wrote the bill but didn’t read it?). As in the case of Rep. Conyers, it was not just the words he said, but how he said them – in a dismissive, condescending tone of voice. He was clearly annoyed that someone would expect him to actually understand the details of his legislation.

Would you think that the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives would expect all members, or at least his caucus, to read bills in their entirety prior to voting on them? Well, if you thought “yes”, you thought wrong. Earlier this month, Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, leader of the House Democrats, said, in relation to the health care bill, “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” In fact, Rep. Hoyer apparently found the whole idea of members completely reading the bills on which they vote to be humorous and absurd. “I’m laughing because I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said, driving home the point that if a bill is too long, why read it?

So, maybe we’re all a bunch of rubes/yokels/hayseeds and don’t understand how important and busy is the life of a member of Congress. Maybe with briefings from staff members and others who did read such bills, members will be casting educated, well-thought-out votes. However, you would think that such experienced politicians would have the decency to at least pretend that they have done their due diligience and personally read each piece of legislation.

Currently, a group named “Let Freedom Ring” has distributed a pledge to all members of the Senate and House of Representatives that reads, in part, “I will not vote to enact any healthcare reform package that … I have not read, personally, in its entirety …” The pledge currently has 101 signers – out of 535 total Senators and members of Congress. So it’s not exactly catching on fire yet. Also, apparently not everybody in the House Democrat leadership has a political tin ear, as a 5-hour work session was organized for about 180 members of the Democratic caucus, in which staffers went through the bill, section by section. An attendee noted, “No one’s going to say we haven’t read the bill.”

We do not want to debate the merits of any bills today, but just suggest that there is nothing unreasonable about constituents expecting their legislators to read completely and understand fully the bills on which they are voting. So to those Senators and members of Congress that have demonstrated by their words and deeds that they will do so, we say, “Nice work!” However, circling back to John Conyers’ dismissive remarks and contempt for those who expect him to perform his job competently, we say:

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”

This oddly-worded, verbal assault on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was issued by North Korea on Thursday (7/23) of this week. It was apparently triggered by some remarks Clinton made on ABC News while in New Delhi earlier in the week, when she compared the North Koreans to unruly children or demanding teenagers. “Don’t give it to them, they don’t deserve it; they are acting out,” she observed (we know, we have teenagers…).

This whole exchange would be hilarious, except for that fact that, beneath it all, very serious issues are involved. However, relative to the North Korean statement, it is our experience that you can’t buy writing like that (what do they pay those wordsmiths in the DPRK)! To call the sitting U.S. Secretary of State a child and an old lady is strange enough, but we can suppose that only a true Communist (in a country with empty store shelves and paltry wages) would feel he’s getting off a real zinger when disparaging someone for “going shopping”!

We’re not going to delve into the serious issues of human rights and nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula right now, but had to seize on this notable, but strange, quote by a Kim Jong Il lackey. So we say to North Korea, while simultaneously scratching our heads:

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”

- “Few challenges facing America, and the world, are more urgent than combatting climate change. The science is beyond dispute …”

- “The need for [health care] reform is urgent, and it is indisputable.”

- President Barack Obama

Three of the most massive, expensive and complicated bills that have come before the United States Congess in years are so urgent and so compelling, that we need to pass them now (or already have). No cause for debate, as the concepts are clearly correct. No reason to slow down and make sure all sides have been examined, as the need for action is immediate and the consequences of inaction dire.

We say, with a slight alteration to this site’s name, “Oh no you can’t say that.”

A call for “urgent” action on a bill in Congress, along with huge pressure from the President, Speaker, Majority Leader, etc. can be described as “necessary for passage”. A more appropriate term is “railroading”, defined by Merriam-Webster Online as, “to push through hastily or without due consideration” – precisely what the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress want. We, the taxpayers and citizens of the United States, are to accept that bills that have not even been read in their entirety by members of Congress, should be passed and signed posthaste. The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, weighed in at about 1100 pages. The cap-and-trade package, officially named the American Clean Energy and Security Act, came in at about 1200 pages. Currently, there are three versions of health-care reinvention working their way through Congress – the latest bill by House Democrats numbering a staggering 1018 pages. And considering last-minute additions to bills can add hundreds more pages (300 pages added the day before cap-and-trade was voted on), the health-care bill will surely be a whopper. So the question is this: with these massive tomes, involving extremely complicated issues and costing hundreds of billions of dollars, why would any rational person want to rush the decision-making process or create artificial deadlines? Why would some suggest that failure to pass such measures – right away – might mean they will never get enacted – because they shouldn’t?

We have been told these bills are so urgent and “beyond dispute” that there is no need for the public, or for members of Congress for that matter, to actually understand everything in them. A possible conclusion is that what is called “delay”, which more appropriately should be called “deliberation”, will reveal fatal flaws in them. With all of the implications that the stimulus bill (already passed), the cap-and-trade bill (passed by the House), and the health care bill (in House committees) have for Americans, the only thing that is “indisputable” is the need to make sure we get them right (or, if necessary, don’t pass them at all).

Our intent here is not to argue the details of these massive bills, but to say, someone has to do it. They need to be debated thoroughly, over an appropriate timeline, and with true bipartisan consideration. We should not get caught up in feel-good demonstrations of support “because people in Washington played the politics of the moment instead of putting the interests of the American people first” (Pres. Barack Obama, 7/21/09). Well said, Mr. President.

Such measures may very well serve the interests of this country. However, the consequences of their passage – both intended and unintended – must weigh heavily on the minds of all our lawmakers. So we say to you, Mr. President, with respect and humility:

“Oh no you didn’t say that [we shouldn't have a robust debate]!”

Ms. Baker and People for the American Way, an organization that states in its mission statement that it is “dedicated to … a vibrantly diverse democratic society in which everyone is treated equally under the law, [and] given the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams…” have decided to villify a law-abiding, hard-working firefighter, whose only offense is to want to be treated fairly. Mr. Ricci worked hard to pursue his dreams, asked only to be “treated equally under the law”, and is now being attacked by a “progressive” group that is happy to tear him down in order to support the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. They have also decided to investigate and publicize what they describe as “Frank Ricci’s troubled and litigious work history.” Disgraceful.

The introductory quote refers to the lead plaintiff in Ricci vs. DeStafano, a lawsuit recently decided by the Supreme Court in Mr. Ricci’s favor. It stems from a group of eighteen firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut that passed a test for promotions to management. City of New Haven officials subsequently invalidated the test because none of the African-American firefighters passed the exam. After working its way through the courts, the Supreme Court heard the case on April 22, 2009 and issued its ruling on June 29, 2009, deciding that New Haven’s decision to ignore the test results violated provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ms. Baker is apparently confused by what she sees as inappropriateness in Mr. Ricci’s past protection by the Americans with Disabilities Act which prevented the City of New Haven from denying his employment as a firefighter based upon his learning disability (dyslexia). The Supreme Court has clarified and affirmed the constitutionality of the ADA on numerous occasions, so it is settled law and should be applied where necessary.

Let’s get it straight – the highest court in the land affirmed that Mr. Ricci was correct in his belief he was discriminated against. In addition, application of a different, existing statute prevented Mr. Ricci from being discriminated against in the past. Ms. Baker made the above statement well after the Supreme Court rendered its Ricci vs. DeStafano decision, so her words are irrelevant, uninformed, mean-spirited, dismissive – and despicable.

During the process of vying for a promotion, Mr. Ricci did not ask for special accommodations to assist him in studying for the management test. To the contrary, he paid $1000 to have the textbooks read onto audio tapes, to compensate for his reading disability. In addition, he took practice tests, made flash cards, and studied with others. He was provided with an opportunity, of which he made the most – and passed the test. His victory was then taken away from him – he was treated unfairly, he decided he would not let it stand, and he was proven correct. To create a campaign to denigrate a public servant – a first responder at that – because of his demand to be given a fair shake is beyond the pale.

Mr. Ricci, congratulations on your successes – for your passing grade on the promotions test and your successful case before the Supreme Court. Ms. Baker, we say “Shame on you” and:

“Oh no you didn’t say that!”