ONLY 17 EXTREMISTS VOTE AGAINST AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. CAN YOU GUESS THEIR NAMES?
>
Bush I signing the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990
Did you ever want to walk up to a blind man and punch him in the face when no one else was around? You didn't? Neither did I. I'm less certain about 17 members of Congress-- and especially one from New Jersey. Now, nothing against New Jersey-- except for this one maniac, every single New Jersey Democrat and every single New Jersey Republican voted for H R 3195, the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments, late yesterday. Actually it wasn't only the whole New Jersey delegation (minus one) that voted for this. Every single Democrat in the nation and all but these 17 far right extremist Republicans supported it too. It's beyond veto-proof. It passed 4102-17. The bill slaps down Bush's corporate Supreme Court by making Congress' intention so clear than not even Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas could misunderstand and misinterpret. Here's what it does:
· Specifically rejects the erroneous Supreme Court decisions that have reduced the protections for people with disabilities under the ADA, restoring original Congressional intent.
· Makes it absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability.
· Clarifies the definition of disability, including what it means to be “substantially limited in a major life activity.”
· Prohibits the consideration of mitigating measures such as medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology, in determining whether an individual has a disability.
· Provides coverage to people who experience discrimination based on a perception of impairment regardless of whether the individual experiences disability.
· Is supported by a broad coalition of civil rights groups, disability advocates, and employer trade organizations.
So, who were the skunks at the picnic? Some of the worst of the rubber stamp extremists who love to oppose this kind of positive legislation-- people like Mean Jean Schmidt, Patrick McHenry, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Walberg and David Dreier-- are too scared of facing their constituents in November to pull their regular hate-filled routines. But that doesn't account for this handful of lunatic fringe Republican hate-mongers:
Paul Broun (GA)
John Capmbell (CA)
John Doolittle (CA)
John Duncan (TN)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Scott Garrett (NJ)
Louie Gohmert (TX)
Jeb Hensarling (TX)
Jack Kingston (GA)
John Linder (GA)
Kenny Marchant (TX)
Ron Paul (TX)
Ted Poe (TX)
Tom Price (GA)
Tom Tancredo (CO)
Dave Weldon (FL)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA)
The Texas and Georgia Republican parties look like more than half the problem. But how do you account for a congressman supposedly representing a moderate district in northern New Jersey, much of it in thoroughly mainstream Bergen County? That would be GOP wildman Scott Garrett. I don't know if he hates all disabled people but I know he's unhappy with one. His opponent for the congressional seat he will likely lose in November is himself a blind man, Dennis Shulman. We asked Dennis for his reaction to Garrett's bizarre vote yesterday."I'm not outraged as someone with a disability, I am outraged as someone who fights for the fundamental American value of equal opportunity."
"The Americans with Disabilities Act is a landmark piece of legislation that has provided millions of Americans with equal access in virtually all areas of life, including education, the workforce, and technology. Perhaps without it, I wouldn't be here to offer a sensible alternative to an out of touch career politician like Scott Garrett."
Anyone who donates at least $25 to Dennis Shulman's campaign today via the Blue America ActBlue page will get a great new double CD-- Quixotic by Matt Keating-- sent to them as a Blue America thank you.
Where were you in 1982?
Labels: Americans With Disabilities Act, Dennis Shulman, Garrett, New Jersey
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 7:15 AM
7 comments
|
Reddit
7 Comments:
Maybe because I am in therapy tbese days dealing with my own childhood wounds, that I cannot help thinking about what happened to these skunks in childhood that they are so mean regarding people who have disabilities.
Ron Paul is no skunk, and as much as you disagree, the Constitution does not provide for this type of legislation. It may be a good cause and a great thing for those with disabilities, but ends do not justify the means. You want this legislation then make it Constitutional and Ron Paul will vote for it time and time again, usurp the Constitution and we open pandora's box...which as it stands, is getting more and more impossible to close.
Here is a little background to Ron's thinking:
Committees of the US Congress have recently been discussing the cutting or elimination of certain federal spending programs. From beginning to end, the discussion seems to be centering on whether the programs are effective and aimed at a worthwhile goal. There seems to be little or no discussion of whether the programs are in the legitimate province of the federal government, as defined by the enumerated powers of the US Constitution. This is exactly backwards from the proper procedure. Yes, we need effective legislation aimed at worthwhile goals; but it is most important that all legislation stay within the limits set by the Constitution. The fact that a thing is worth doing does not mean that the federal government has or should have the lawful power to do it.
When Davy Crockett was a US Representative from Tennessee, he had an experience that drove this principle home for him. One day, while lounging on the Capitol steps with some other Congressmen, they saw a fire raging in Georgetown. Crockett and the others rode to the fire and worked to get it under control (imagine that happening now, if you can). When the fire was out, a number of people had been left homeless. The next morning, on the House floor, a bill appropriating $20,000 to relieve the victims of the fire was rushed through on a recorded vote. Crockett voted in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when he was up for re-election, Colonel Crockett went back to his home district to do some campaigning. People seemed happy enough with him, until he ran into a man named Horatio Bunce, a well-respected resident of the district. Mr. Bunce told Davy in no uncertain terms that he could not vote for him again. He accused the Congressman of not having the capacity to understand the Constitution, citing the $20,000 appropriation as evidence.
Noting that giving charity is not one of the powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, Mr. Bunce told Davy, "...while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he...If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."
Thoroughly convinced, Davy incorporated Mr. Bunce's arguments, and a confession of his own wrongdoing, into his campaign speeches. Re-elected without opposition, Crockett returned to Washington with a far better understanding of his duty to uphold the Constitution. When the opportunity came to vote on a relief bill for the widow of a naval officer, he offered in his speech to donate one week's salary to her cause, but not to vote public funds for it. The House followed his lead in voting down the appropriation, but not a single other member contributed any of his own money (though they had been ready enough to contribute that of the taxpayers).
Oh, for a silver tongue like that of Horatio Bunce! To be able to convince citizens and Congressmen alike to respect the Constitution and the founding principles of our nation.
Actually, Ron Paul *is* skunk.
And to claim that he bases his positions only in the Constitution is to ignore half of all his positions.
". . . the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
-- Ron Paul, Christmas in Secular America, 29 December 2003
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
Meet the Press' transcript:
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), John Harwood and Chuck Todd
Tim Russert, Dec. 23, 2007, msnbc.com
Tyranny can arrive in many guises: food with an embedded hook, a smiled greeting with a stab in the back, or sometimes in bills that purport to do good while really providing ample opportunity for theft, mischief or crime.
In attempting to protect the voting privacy rights of the disabled, we have not only opened the door for theft, mischief and crime, but the very destruction of the foundations of our government.
Electronic voting, rather than human read paper ballots or mechanical tabulators, became all the vogue because the electronic voting industry made donations to groups of the handicapped for the purpose of lobbying Congress. Disability legislation became the Trojan horse for the electronic voting industry.
There are enormous sums of money to be made in replacing voting equipment, and there are many open and others as yet only hinted at, scandals and corruption cases revolving around the introduction of these machines.
But the financial cost is the least of the damage that these machines do to our nation. From incompetence to the sinister, these machines have destroyed the integrity of our voting system. Long waits, bad repairs, vote flipping, lack of audits. Failures of security. There is even a video of a chimpanzee who was trained to hack an electronic voting machine. Hack the device, and you can elect who ever you want.
Those of a tyrannical mindset often attempt to use children and the disabled as vehicles for criminal ways. I find this to be an incredible abuse of those amongst us who are powerless.
In the name of protecting the voting rights of the disabled, the voting rights industry has destroyed the voting rights of the able and the disabled.
1982- Married, working for a Fortune 50 Multinational traveling 100% internationally and a registered Republican.
Ok, I'm in, and I hope that makes me the 5th contributer here to Dennish Shulman?
Can we ever be sure if anonymousies have credit cards?
I am sure the more articulate that we have, do >:-)>
To The second Anonymous
So tell me what unconstitutional legislation Ron Paul endorsed or voted on that came from your quote and not the constitution itself.
It is only because of the majority's usurpation of the Constitution via the "living document" mantra that anyone is suggesting an amendment for it. The fact is that the framers of the 14th amendment never allowed or intended for children born to non-citizens to be considered citizens at the time of their birth. NEVER.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
If the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.
Sen. Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, concurs:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now.
(continue to next post... ANONY#3--CS_N_LA)
Sen. Johnson:
[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...
Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States.
It reads in part:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...
Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government.
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed.
~Anony#3 (AKA-CS_N_LA)
Post a Comment
<< Home