Ann Marie Buerkle: This is the Definition of Common Ground

With special thanks to GatesChiliPost.com in Cayuga County:

Guest essay: Principled doesn’t mean inflexible

By Ed O’Shea

Messenger Post

Jul 30, 2011

Wayne County, N.Y. —

A week ago I wrote my congresswoman, Ann Marie Buerkle, to ask her if there was any way, by her action or inaction, she would allow the United States of America to default on its debt.


I have not heard back from Congresswoman Buerkle, but I hear from others who have contacted her office that she is slow to respond to questions that don’t chime with her political principles or the small range of issues she is interested in.


And that’s the problem. The 25th Congressional District in recent years has been a moderate district represented by political moderates like Dan Maffei and Jim Walsh. But A.M. Buerkle was elected as a member of the Tea Party coalition last November, and she’s typical of the Tea Partiers in that she leads with her ideology but has trouble getting further than that — to the political process where not everyone thinks alike and where you have to meet constituents and other politicians halfway. In other words, compromise.


When Bill Clinton left office, we had a budget surplus of $236 billion and no federal deficit (FactCheck.org). In the next administration, we had two wars that Americans were not asked to pay for, extravagant tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest Americans (also unpaid for), and a financial crisis, the deepest since the Great Depression, caused by risky unregulated Wall Street practices and the collapse of the housing market because of greed and lack of good business practices. President George W. Bush, and then after him President Barack Obama, took bold fiscal steps to ensure that we didn’t slide into a full blown Depression.


If Congresswoman Buerkle and other members of the House freshmen class of 2011 were in office at that time of crisis, I believe we would have what we have now in the debt ceiling crisis: the hopeless gridlock and finger pointing that rightly disgust the electorate. We would be in a full-blown financial meltdown with even worse unemployment and stagnation, no domestic auto industry (credit Barack Obama for his leadership in keeping it alive), and frozen credit markets unable to make loans to small businesses and home buyers.


We admire politicians who have strong principles and who aren’t blown around by every change in wind direction. But we don’t admire politicians who are inflexible, who don’t recognize the diversity in the electorate (Ms. Buerkle won the district by only some 600 votes), and who are more than willing to “play chicken” with America’s health and future prosperity.


In other words, Ms. Buerkle is wrong for the 25th District because she hasn’t learned how to both maintain her principles and accommodate other points of view to govern effectively in a pluralist democracy.


Ed O’Shea of Marion is chairman of the Wayne County Democratic Committee.

Copyright 2011 Gates-Chili Post. Some rights reserved

Buerkle and Other Anti-Choice Tyrants: Who Will You Choose To Be Today?

Some Conservatives and all tea partiers have excised the word "choice" from their vocabularies, to their peril. 

They forget that even drinking the tea is a choice.

"Teach Your Children Well" ... and bravo to this school, whatever the choices.

Buerkle: Oh, My Gosh!

Oh, my gosh!

Seniors worry I might vote to cut their benefits, thinks Buerkle.

Her office is swamped by calls. And her response is to use deception and fear, because there is no way in hell that no new revenue can mean maintaining social programs, let alone safety net programs. 

Unless...these senseless, murderous, endless wars wind down, and fast.  But she's never, ever, even glanced in that direction. 

Thanks to the Syracuse Post-Standard:

Central New York representatives pledge their support for Social Security, Medicare

Friday, July 29, 2011, 4:04 AM

By Glenn Coin / The Post-Standard 

Syracuse, NY -- Democrat or Republican alike, Central New York representatives say they won’t vote for any debt ceiling plan that cuts Social Security or Medicare. Bill Owens adds two more sacred cows: Medicaid and Fort Drum. And Ann Marie Buerkle said she won’t go for any new taxes.

As the House considered a Republican plan for a temporary lifting of the debt ceiling just days before a possible U.S. default, Syracuse-area representatives tried Thursday to explain what they could live with in a deal.

“The right tack is to stop spending money — don’t raise taxes on the American people,” Buerkle said. “The right thing to do for this country is to cap our spending. We must do this because (otherwise) we won’t have a country left. This is the right thing to do for our kids and grandkids.” [emphasis added]

Buerkle, R-Onondaga Hill, said she does not favor cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and the bill proposed by House Speaker John Boehner preserves those programs. "This bill does not cut any entitlement spending,” she said. Buerkle said her office has been swamped by calls from senior citizens worried they will lose benefits.  ...

Tools in Buerkle's limited toolbox:

Deception Don't raise taxes "..on the American people...". That is a strange twist! The fact is, raising taxes will spare us a much, much harsher outcome. And the further truth is Buerkle is dedicated to saving wealthy Americans and corporate entities from stepping up to the plate and paying their fair shares. No one is talking about raising taxes for the rank and file.

Fear "...we won't have a country left." Fact is the Tea Party know-nothings are guaranteeing that very outcome with their stupid, thoughtless, knee-jerk, reactionary (oh, never mind...). 

Buerkle and Other Truth-Challenged tea baggers: Put the Blame Where it Belongs

Comedy and Tragedy, tea party style

Blueskygirl is both amused and horrified at the choices folks at a local tea party internet site that supports Ann Marie Buerkle recently made.

Blueskygirl is amused that the tea baggers took a swipe at her and thought they identified her. 

They maligned her as they inserted their own words, unattributed, into a reproduced syr.com article about redistricting. The syr.com reporter may not be so amused by their deliberate alteration of the article. 

Blueskygirl is also horrified.  She is horrified that these tea baggers very publicly named the wrong person. Unfortunately they may have damaged someone professionally or personally by their deliberate stupidity.

The tea baggers would be wise to make a retraction and a public apology, although we know real tea baggers are congenitally incapable of admitting their mistakes.

Right Wing/Fundamentalist Birth Control

This just in from the great state of Texas:

"Abstinence is the only acceptable birth control": this is the only sex education information teenagers receive in Texan schools. This training is wrapped around a religious message of morality and fear and also teaches that birth control doesn't work.


The teen pregnancy rate in Texas is 50% higher than the national average. Texas also leads the nation in second pregnancies among teens.


It turns out that Texas kids thought that "if birth control doesn't work, why use it?"


Governor Rick Perry swears that abstinence works. 


Blueskygirl supposes he is technically correct.

Buerkle's Ideology Over Compassion

House Committee Votes to Reinstate Global Gag Rule (Again) and Other Misogynistic Amendments

by Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check

July 21, 2011 

[Blueskygirl added the bold]

A central motto of today's GOP and Tea Parties appears to be: Never let evidence get in the way of efforts to pass a law undermining women's access to healthcare.

An addendum to this motto appears to be: Never let an opportunity pass to deny funding to or politicize services providing care to the poorest and least-enfranchised women in the world, most particularly those who suffer high rates of maternal death due to lack of access to family planning services and high rates of complications of pregnancy and unsafe abortion.

[entire article continued below Blueskygirl's remarks:]

Ann Marie Buerkle and pals are at it again: withholding funds for women's health. Specifically, they have voted out of committee to keep poor women worldwide pregnant, birthing as many children as humanly possible, and/or dead in the process, by virtue of continuation of the Global Gag Rule, a particularly inhumane addendum to the State Department budget for next year. 

All is explained below in Jodi Jacobson's excellent article in RH (Reproductive Health) Reality Check, summarizing the sad despicable outcome of the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on Wednesday.

The House is so lucky to have Right-to-Life foot soldiers like the Nurse Sisters (Buerkle and Renee Ellmers), and the entire slate of Republican Foreign Relations Committee members, saving the old guard from facing a furious electorate back home.

Before getting to the article, please allow Blueskygirl to introduce some of Buerkle's illustrious pals:

• Chris Smith (R-NJ)-arguably the king of misogyny in all of Congress; former head of Right to Life in NJ ; during the present Congressional term he is the genius who coined the term "forcible rape", ostensibly to distinguish between that and invitational rape. There is much more (see Wikipedia for starters). 
• Jean Schmidt (R-OH)-former president of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, she's the gal who called 38-year Marine veteran and Congressman John Murtha a coward for questioning continued US involvement in Iraq. She apologized but too late.
• Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)-100% pro-life except girls and women; has very bad hair . 
• Renee Ellmers (R-NC)-strident anti-Muslim Tea Partier; strident right-to-lifer except girls and women; endorsed by Sarah Palin (as was Buerkle).
• Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)-against Prop. 8 in California; Right-to-Lifer. 

Can there be anyone who wouldn't like to have peace in the world? Lifting the Global Gag Rule is a part of any route to peace. How can caring for the reproductive health of women with less than we in the US have not be a good thing?

[article continued...)

In keeping with this, just weeks after publication of a major report underscoring the benefits of robust U.S. investment in family planning worldwide, the GOP-controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee voted in the early hours of the morning today to reinstate the Global Gag Rule (GGR) as part of the draft Fiscal Year 2012 State Department Authorizations Act, except this time with broader and more damaging implications than ever before.

Some 215 million women worldwide have an "unmet need" for family planning, meaning that they want to either space or limit births but do not have access or lack consistent access to reliable methods of birth control that fit their personal needs. Women with unmet need make up 82 percent of the estimated 75 million unintended pregnancies that occur each year. The remaining 18 percent are due to inconsistent method use or method failure.

Providing all women with basic family planning services, is first and foremost a matter of basic human rights and bodily integrity. But it is a smart investment for many other reasons. As an April 2011 report by the Council on Foreign Relations notes:

Global demographic and health trends affect a wide range of vital U.S. foreign policy interests. These interests include the desire to promote healthy, productive families and communities, more prosperous and stable societies, resource and food security, and environmental sustainability. International family planning is one intervention that can advance all these interests in a cost-effective manner.  [In addition such investments] can significantly improve maternal, infant, and child health and avert unintended pregnancies and abortions... [and] saves significant investments in other health and social services.

How best to do this? Dramatically expanding access to quality, voluntary reproductive health services, programs for lack of which women are quite literally dying.

And it is these very programs that the House GOP most hates, as evidenced by the endless effort to institute the gag rule.

In brief, the GGR, which has existed in the form of an Executive Order for nearly three decades, denies U.S. family planning assistance to any foreign organization that uses their own non-U.S. funds to provide information, referrals or services for legal abortion services or to advocate for the legalization of abortion in countries where complications of unsafe abortion are often the leading cause of maternal death and women die in droves from illegal and unsafe abortions.  Since 1984, the GGR, also known as the "Mexico City Policy," has been a political football, first imposed by the Reagan Administration then lifted (by Presidents Clinton and Obama) and re-imposed (by President Bush) every time the White House has changed hands.

The GGR is not necessary to prevent U.S. funding of abortion care. Another law, the Helms Amendment, already forbids U.S. funding for abortion care abroad except in cases of rape and incest (exceptions rarely if ever realized on the ground in any case). But under the GGR, the United States government has traditionally been prohibited from providing funding for contraceptive supplies and counseling to groups that deliver family planning services if they otherwise engage in the above-mentioned "abortion activities." 

That reality underscores the true intention behind the GGR: to undermine family planning programs that could prevent abortion in the first place. 

And that has been its effect.  Numerous reports (including those from the Center for Reproductive Rights, Population Action International, Ipas, and Human Rights Watch) exist documenting the egregious effects of the GGR on family planning and the lives and health of real women, so I won't detail them all here.  Suffice it to say that the GGR in its original form denies funding to those organizations best poised in terms of knowledge, capacity, legitimacy, and effectiveness to deliver reproductive health care to women in developing countries. 

The version now included in the current draft FY 2012 State Department Authorization Act goes further than simply denying family planning funds to a much broader agenda. According to Ranking Member Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA):

"The language in the bill not only bars family planning assistance to local health care providers in poor countries, it bars ALL assistance to such organizations – including HIV/AIDS funding, water and sanitation, child survival, and education."

As such, noted Berman, the current language creates "provisions... far more extreme than any policy that was implemented under Presidents Reagan, George Bush, or George W. Bush. Even President George W. Bush exempted HIV/AIDS assistance from the Global Gag Rule restrictions."

"Withholding investment in women’s health by imposing this language on the clinics and NGOs that support them," asserts Berman, "is a major step back in U.S. development efforts around the world."

According to colleagues, a "spirited, hour-long debate" was held late last night on the amendment "with Reps. Berman, Gerald Connolly (D-VA), David Cicilline (R-RI), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Eliot Engel, Theodore Deutch (D-FL), and Chris Murphy (D-CT) defending the Berman proposal, and Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Ann-Marie Buerkle (R-NY), Renee Ellmers (R-NC), and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) speaking in favor of reinstating the gag rule." 

When the vote was taken this morning, however, the Berman amendment to remove the GGR failed by a vote of 17 to 25.  All Republican committee members and one Democrat, Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY), voted against the Berman “motion to strike” the GGR provision from the bill. Two Democrats—Reps. Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Karen Bass (D-CA)—who would have otherwise supported the Berman amendment if they had been present for this morning’s vote, were absent. 

It is worth noting that groups like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council, Americans United For Life and other such organizations fully back re-instatement of the gag rule.

The GGR was not the only politically- and ideologically-motivated portion of the bill aimed at undermining women's rights.  Another amendment, this one offered by Congressman Fortenberry, was adopted.  It states: "It shall be the policy of the United States to declare sex-selection abortion a human rights violation," and mandates that the State Department track and report on sex-selection abortion in every country.  Why is this bad policy? For one thing, it focuses on the outcome, rather than the cause, of deep gender disparities around the world that create overwhelming preferences for sons, and by doing so focuses on the actions of women attempting to conform to gender norms they don't create.  For another, it does nothing to address those gender disparities and thereby make better the lives of women and girls, nor does it strengthen basic reproductive health care services urgently needed by all women.  And finally, taking a page from past such strategies, it is yet another effort by the far right to begin creating a case for denying assistance to other countries, this time based on sex-selection abortion reports.

A third amendment, one that would have sought to eliminate U.S. funding to UNFPA, was not offered, as it is expected that there will be a separate bill introduced by Congresswoman Ellmers, who earlier this year made clear she intended to do so.

Once the full bill passes out of committee, it will continue on to a vote in the House. 

And if these policies become law, women will go on dying, unnecessarily, to advance the political careers of the likes of Chris Smith and the political agendas of the USCCB and others with a lifelong desire to deny them care.

Buerkle: Foot in Mouth at CFPB Hearing...not cute

many thanks to Occasional Links and Commentary http://anticap.wordpress.com/ for the cartoon and remarks:

... [Elizabeth] Warren [Obama appointee as advisor to the Treasury to architect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] if nothing else is astonishingly competent, and competence is too often undervalued. She has a career of being thrown into the deep end of the pool and pulling off things that by any common sense standard should be beyond her. Indeed, her banking industry detractors were clearly expecting to lambaste her for organizational cock-ups; instead, the only thing that came up in the Congressional hazing last week was Ann Marie Buerkle’s foot-in-mouth effort to blame Warren for hiring people using the pay scales established for the CFPB in Dodd Frank. . .

[The baby we can excuse. Do your homework, Ann Marie.]

Justice and History at City Hall

A certain justice will be done on July 24 at City Hall in Syracuse. City Hall marks the intersection of Ann Marie Buerkle's brief anti-gay history in Syracuse politics with a great leap forward for the march for equality for all people.

July 24 is the date in New York State when same-sex marriages licenses become available all across the state. There will be a celebration at City Hall!

Here is a brief history of Buerkle's short tenure on the Syracuse Common Council for those who don't know it. 

Contrary to what Sarah Palin said in her endorsement of Ann Marie Buerkle last summer, Buerkle was appointed, not elected, to her only other political position.

She became a counselor-at-large on the Syracuse Common Council on January 31, 1994, to fill a vacant seat.

The vote was not unanimous.

Rick Guy, Miles Bottrill, Edward Carni,  Susann Panick and  [Councilor] Cowan voted for her.

This was the era of the polarizing politics of Rick Guy, a man who got his religion mixed up with his politics in a most dangerous way. Extremist views on many issues, religious values seeping into civic matters ... it was a time that Syracuse people of heart do not look back on with joy

Vicki Mannion, Karen Uplinger, Charles Anderson and [Councilor] McCarthy voted "no" on Buerkle's appointment.

This was 5 years after Buerkle's "blackened foetus" cameo at Planned Parenthood in Syracuse.

 Buerkle's next most famous attempt to embarrass herself came In early May of her year on the Council, when she tried to impose her religious values on city residents by joining up with Guy against a resolution for the city to recognize by proclamation Saturday, June 18 1994 as Gay and Lesbian Pride Day. Guy and Buerkle were in imminent danger of losing, so Guy objected to taking the vote and the resolution was tabled until the next meeting.

The battle was bitter. The antis whipped up a frenzy of fear and loathing among fundamentalists and aging Catholics, with petition and letter-writing campaigns targeting counselors who might be on the fence. Remember that HIV-AIDS was still very much a polarizing issue and Texas could still tell you what you could and could not do in your bedroom.

Later in the month the Syracuse Common Council voted 5 to 4 against "recognizing Saturday June 18, 1994, as Gay and Lesbian Pride Day in the City of Syracuse".

Voting yes were McCarty, Mannion, Uplinger and Anderson.

Voting no were Guy, Buerkle, Cowin, Bottrill and Carni.

Buerkle and Rick Guy united on several more fronts, including a December 1994 attempt at a curfew for minors. They were defeated.

Buerkle was not elected when she tried to retain her Common Council seat, so she was gone in January 1995, less that a year after her appointment.  

Fortunately, except for an unsuccessful run for NYS Assembly last year, replete with robocalls and disinformation, Rick Guy has disappeared from the public policy front.

Activists will never forgive Guy and Buerkle.  That year in the history of Syracuse had a galvanizing effect on progressives.

So, on July 24 celebrate like a rock star at City Hall!!!!

Blueskygirl bets Ann Marie Buerkle and Rick Guy will not be there. Ha.

The Marriage Vow, Fresh From Iowa

WARNING: The logic of this post bobs and weaves a little, but Blueskygirl trusts you'll get her gist.

Gary Johnson, Republican, presidential candidate and former governor of New Mexico, squared off against Iowa's Family Leader "marriage vow" pledge that was circulated to Republican presidential hopefuls a couple of weeks ago, by producing this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCu3lZMvFcs

Blueskygirl is not suddenly all Gary Johnson, and she is also well aware that the Founding Fathers weren't including the African people they owned, nor the women they were married to, when they said that all men are created equal. 

Still, the video gets at the insanity of the Bohners, Buerkles, Cantors, Cains, Palins, Bachmanns and McConnells of this world. Gary Johnson is to be commended for seeing through the politico-religious ideology.

Last week the pledge was immediately signed by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, who apparently wanted to be first to affirm to the world how deep is their racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, fear of the First Amendment, and general hatefulness toward anyone not like them.  (see below for the preamble and pledge, in its original form as it was signed by Bachmann and Santorum)

The core values for which progressives and "libs" fight are basic to human rights. 

So, why do people like Ann Marie Buerkle and her Tea Party cohort work hard every day to make American values seem so complicated and limiting?  Is it genetic? Psychiatric? Simpleminded? Or is it money?

All Blueskygirl really knows is that Buerkle has been like this since at least 1977 when she became publicly obsessed with limiting women's right to choose. 

You might think she would trust women, since she is one. You would be wrong.

 THE MARRIAGE VOW 

[as put forth by THE FAMiLY LEADER's leader Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa]

A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY1 

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.2 

Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure without the transmission of personal virtue, from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities. Unmistakably, the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis:

 Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.3 [this section was removed after an immediate outcry, but not before Bachmann and Santorum signed the pledge]

 LBJ‟s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents4 – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity. 5 

 About one million U.S. children suffer through divorce each year – the outcome of about half of all first marriages and about 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically-vulnerable families.6 

 The taxpayer-borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion per year, especially when all costs to the justice system are recognized.7 

 Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal co-habitation; exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health. 8 

The Candidate Vow: 

Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my: 

 Personal fidelity to my spouse.9 

 Respect for the marital bonds of others.10 

 Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.11 

 Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.12 

 Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy. 13 

 Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.” 14 

 Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.15 

 Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States. 16 

 Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.17 

 Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.18 

 Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.19 

 Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security. 20 

 Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.21 

 Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech22, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy. 

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Family-Leader-Presidential-Pledge.pdf

TP Friend of Carl Paladino Wants People to Pick Up Their Stuff

This just in from Orange-Sullivan Tea Party:

Dear citizen patriot [from Sheryl Thomas],

Tea Party Works/Orange-Sullivan Tea Party is moving. We are not exactly sure where we are going but it won't be far! We will let you know as soon as we make final arrangements.

~~~~~~~~~~~ 

ORANGE-SULLIVAN TEA PARTY  

Update and Pack-up Meeting 

  

xx, July xx  

xxx

Middletown NY 10941

  

If you loaned O-S Tea Party a flag, picture, appliance, furniture or whatever 

[How about baseball bats?]

we need you to pick it up this Tuesday 

or no later than Saturday, July xx.   

Thank you so much for your contribution! 

  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inner Irony

Blueskygirl's remedial irony teacher tells her she is getting too serious again. She needs more practice to see the vast opportunities right here in front of her.

Fortunately her subjects are ready and reliable sources of humor. 

So, Blueskygirl promises to lighten up, study Jon Stewart even harder, and strengthen her inner irony. 

Here's a cartoon about irony to brighten the day:

Jesus and Mo

jesusandmo.net

Psssst, We Already ELECTED the Folks Who Changed the Law!

Tea party compatriots, is there something about electoral politics in New York State that you don't understand? Can we try to explain it to you?

PS: If you really want the people to vote on same-sex marriage, here is how it will work out: "In New York, passage of the bill reflects rapidly evolving sentiment about same-sex unions. In 2004, according to a Quinnipiac poll, 37 percent of the state’s residents supported allowing same-sex couples to wed. This year, 58 percent of them did." (New York Times, June 24, 2011)

How's that democracy thing working out for you?

STAND UP

AND BE HEARD

RALLY ON 07.24.11 @ 3:00pm

Governor Cuomo and the New York Legislature imposed same-sex marriage on New York with no vote of the people. Voters in 31 other states have been able to decide the definition of marriage for their states, but New Yorkers have been denied that right!

Stand up to protest the redefinition of marriage and demand your right to vote!

If New York is going to change the definition of marriage, it should be the People and not the politicians who make the decision!

Let the People Vote! Join us on July 24 [at 3pm] in NYC, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo to let your voice be heard! Additional details coming soon...

Just Mind Your Own Business, Ann Marie; Nothing to See Here

Sarah Palin's PAC Boosts Buerkle's PAC

(Pssssst, Ann Marie, with friends like this, you don't need enemies.)

Sarah Palin's tricked-out bus decorations: $14k

From Politico.com By Maggie Haberman 7/14/11 

Sarah Palin spent almost $14,000 from her PAC to decorate her "One Nation" bus tour vehicle with customized "bus wrap," ABC News reports.

The PAC's treasurer, Tim Crawford, told the network that the filing was strong, and that they "more than doubled the amount we raised as compared to the same period in 2009."

             There are some other details of the filing, including:

On the last day of the mid-year reporting period — June 29, 2011, SarahPAC contributed $5,000 each to the following candidate committees: Bucshon for Congress (Ind.), Ann Marie Buerkle for Congress (N.Y.), Vicky Hartzler for Congress (Mo.), Martha Roby for Congress (Ala.), Wicker for Senate (Miss.), Lou Barletta for Congress (Pa.), Allen West for Congress (Fla.), Duffy for Congress (Wis.), Canseco for Congress (Texas), Renee Ellmers for Congress (N.C.), Fitzpatrick for Congress (Pa.), Bob Corker for Senate 2012 (Tenn.). 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59038.html#ixzz1SByD7KFF

Buerkle: Not Working for Working People

Ann Marie Buerkle continues her assault on the interests of ordinary Americans. She has again attacked  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its architect, Elizabeth Warren.

Appointed by President Obama, Elizabeth Warren is working diligently to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau next week.

Watch this April 2011 video interview from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in which Warren describes her goal of protecting the financial interests of families from predatory lenders. The CFPB will require transparency in automobile, insurance, credit card and mortgage contracts. [video parts 2 and 3 are also available when you reach The Daily Show site.]

The fire-fight the Republicans are waging against her and the CFPB  has been relentless. In hearings this week, Republicans have displayed willful ignorance of the intent of the bureau and they have persistently  disrespected Warren. They appear to be intentionally creating suspicion. Why fight so hard against the interests of American citizens who were unnecessarily vulnerable and damaged during the financial meltdown? 

Here are a few things to know about two key Republican/Conservative/Tea Party hacks, Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Buerkle (R-NY):

Ann Marie Buerkle is a lieutenant on Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform committee. She, we already know, disdains Americans who voted her into office. She patronizes them; she manipulates them into doing her bullying at her "Town Hall" charades. Like many other tea partiers, she only likes "freedom" for people who agree with her moral view of the universe. She is wealthy by local standards. She owns commercial real estate including a Friendly's in Camillus, two homes including one right by the water on Skaneateles Lake, and other properties. She has always been interested in using political power to extend her moral views.

Buerkle has a gifted teacher in Darrell Issa. At heart Issa is a street thug and a bully. Years ago he was guilty of a concealed weapons charge, insurance fraud, and auto theft,; he may also be an arsonist. Now he is worth $250 million or $451 million [sources disagree]; and Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. His current wealth only changed his weaponry, not his mentality. One of his mantras is "how can we cut regulations so that your business can create jobs?" Does that sound familiar? After 9/11 he reportedly asked this: "why [do] the firefighters who went there and everybody in the city of New York need... to come to the federal government for the dollars versus this being primarily a state consideration[?]" 

Buerkle, Issa and other Republicans on the committee were openly rude and disrespectful to Warren at a committee hearing in May. The recent hearing was somewhat more civil. Still, Buerkle's questioning, as seen on this YouTube clip, is redundant and patronizing.

Blueskygirl returns to the puzzle of why people voted for Buerkle. Blueskygirl is talking about the same people who will benefit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, yet will applaud Buerkle's treatment of Warren. Why do people vote against their own self interest? 

Here is yesterday's article in The Wall Street Examiner:

Elizabeth Warren vs. House GOP, round 3

By Jennifer Liberto @CNNMoney ; July 14, 2011

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Elizabeth Warren faced another round of tough questioning about the consumer financial protection bureau at a House hearing on Thursday, her third trip to Capitol Hill this year.

House GOP lawmakers want to curb the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and have called Warren to "finish answering questions" that some lawmakers didn't get a chance to pose to her publicly during a tense May committee hearing.

Thursday's hearing on the consumer bureau was more civil than past ones. Republicans still asked Warren questions aimed at depicting the bureau as too much big government, as when Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle of New York asked if it would "kill jobs."

"I don't think it'll cost people's jobs, I think it'll make them more secure," Warren replied.

Warren has been working long hours to prepare the bureau for its new role, which will include such tasks as inspecting the books at the nation's biggest banks that control most of the nation's mortgages.

Darrell Issa, the California Republican who chairs the committee, said the hearing was being held to ask "whether or not the American people can feel comfortable that what was envisioned in Dodd-Frank is indeed what they want" in a consumer bureau, he said at the beginning of the hearing.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created as a part of last year's Dodd-Frank Act, which Congress passed to rewrite the financial rules of the road to prevent the next financial crisis.

Excerpts from another article yesterday, in Credit Union Times:

Warren and GOP Lawmakers Clash on CFPB Powers

By Claude R. Marx,  July 14, 2011

House Republicans used a committee hearing Thursday to accuse those setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of not disclosing enough information and for not spelling out what financial products it plans to target for increased scrutiny....

[Elizabeth Warren] said that they would protect consumers by expanding disclosure requirements and don’t expect to ban certain financial products or take measures to raise compliance costs.

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) said in light of high unemployment rate, she is concerned that any actions by the CFPB would raise compliance costs and cause companies to reduce hiring.

Warren responded that one of the bureau’s first efforts will be to combine the disclosure forms required by the Real Estate Settlements Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). She said this will make the process simpler for consumers and cheaper for financial institutions and noted that the bureau is working with banks and credit unions in its efforts.

Buerkle then asked if the bureau will “never, ever[?]” make rules or policies that raise compliance costs.’’

Warren said their work on RESPA and TILA will be a template for their efforts....

Credit union leaders have expressed their concern over new regulations imposed on the industry, while Republican lawmakers have been working to weaken the new agency’s powers and have promised to filibuster the nomination of whoever is ultimately selected by President Barack Obama to lead it.

And in the New York Times

Republican Attacks Persist for Consumer Bureau

By Eric Lichtblau, July 14, 2011

• WASHINGTON — House Republicans threatened Thursday to roll back the scope and authority of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even before it officially opens for business next week.
• 
  

At a combative hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Republicans squared off against Elizabeth Warren, who is setting up the new agency, challenging her to explain what they saw as a bloated, $500 million budget, an overly broad mandate and regulatory power that could deter lending.

As Democrats rallied to defend Ms. Warren and the start-up agency, the morning-long hearing underscored the fundamental disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over the mission and powers of the bureau, echoing the fight over its creation last year.

The agency, created by Congress in the sweeping Dodd-Frank financial regulations law to guard borrowers from unfair lending practices, formally starts operations next Tuesday after nine months of preparations.

Ms. Warren, a Harvard law professor, has been leading the organization of the bureau but many Republicans have opposed her as the full-time director because they believe she has a history of antibusiness attitudes. The White House has not announced a nominee for director, who would require Senate confirmation.

This was Ms. Warren’s second appearance before the oversight committee since May, when she and Republicans clashed openly when she attempted to excuse herself after an hour of testimony.

Both Republicans and Democrats promised more civil discourse in Thursday’s hearing. But the political sniping sometimes overwhelmed testimony as the hearing devolved into what one committee member called “a partisan food fight.” Democrats apologized to Ms. Warren for her treatment by Republicans whom they accused of “sabotaging” the agency to protect Wall Street.

Republican members opposed to the agency’s powers repeatedly asked Ms. Warren if there were credit instruments or practices, like payday lending, that she would seek to ban as abusive or unfair under the agency’s new authority.

Ms. Warren said there were not any practices she would want to ban at the moment, adding that she would instead pursue less severe remedies like consumer education, enforcement investigations, fines or civil lawsuits against lenders.

Several Republicans seized on her answer and then pressed her to agree to strip the agency of its power to ban such practices if she did not see any immediate need to use them. But Ms. Warren balked, saying the power to ban practices was one important tool the new agency needed to fix “a broken consumer credit system.”

Expanding on her vision for the agency, Ms. Warren said she saw it as a “cop on the beat” that would regulate lending institutions, seek to simplify loan documents to make them more understandable and guard against fraud and abuse.

Republicans have unsuccessfully tried to chip away at the authority and structure of the agency by proposing a commission instead of a single director to oversee it, among other ideas. They signaled Thursday that they want to reduce the agency’s powers by challenging the salaries of some staff members, the justification for its budget decisions, its authority to look into certain types of financial institutions and practices, and a number of other organizational issues.

Representative Ann Marie Buerkle, Republican of New York, said she worried that an overly intrusive consumer agency would drive up the cost of compliance by lenders and make it harder for small businesses and others to get affordable credit.

Ms. Warren said that the large banks and lenders hired “armies of lawyers” who produced loan documents that were indecipherable to many Americans. “We need some pushback. We’re the voice on behalf of the customers, the American families,” she said.

She said that the agency’s regulation of the industry should help to lower the costs of credit to Americans, rather than raise it, and make borrowers “a little more secure.”

Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he found it “stunning” that Republicans appeared to be “flacking for banks” rather for standing up for borrowers and for an agency meant to protect them.

Democrats won a small victory when they sought to get Representative Darrell E. Issa, the California Republican who leads the committee, to subpoena major mortgage lenders for documents on abusive practices.

Mr. Issa refused the demand for subpoenas, but he agreed later in the day to a compromise of sending a formal “document request,” along with Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the panel, to seek records from 10 major lenders related to lending abuses involving service members.