Take a look at these two videos to see Washington DC hypocrisy at its best.
This first one is of Senator Jim DeMint (R) attempting to get a vote on S 604, the Senate companion to Ron Paul’s HR 1207 bill auditing the Federal Reserve. DeMint outlines why the bill is important, highlights its bipartisan support and explains why the American people are interested in an audit of the Federal Reserve:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWobmdjieHQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
At this point, Senator Ben Nelson (who suddenly has an interest in helping out Ben Bernanke and Co.) recites with an almost practised clarity that the amendment violates “Rule 16″ – a rule that attempts to prevent legislation being attached to an appropriations bill. The Senate president hastily agreed and shot the bill down in one sentence.
I would like to consider the surgical nature of this exchange. It is not my intent to suggest that politicians aren’t smart people – but I am shocked that all of this happened so quickly. It seemed more like a play, with actors taking cues from one another in order to read their lines than it did honest and open debate Senate of the supposedly most “free” nation on the planet.
Then, and this is the comical part, DeMint went through and read several other portions of the bill – audits identical to the one which S 604 requests that did not get the ire of Senator Nelson or the Senate president. DeMint goes one step further and asks the Senate president to confirm that these audits also violate Rule 16 – which she grudgingly does.
He then, and this next move is pure genius, highlights a $200,000 earmark that that Senator Nelson has put into the bill for a Museum in Durham Nebraska. The Senate president admits this also violates Rule 16 and is legislative – granted this strike by DeMint seems to hit a little close to home and the president attempts to defend the earmark by arguing it is “germane” to the language of the bill.
See the rest of the exchange here:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRQHsXujpo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
I’m not one to give any credit to conspiracy theories, but this all strikes me as one giant game played the Democrats (and others, I’m sure) in order to block a Federal Reserve Audit. Kudos to DeMint for exposing the myth of fairness and integrity in Washington.
Here’s DeMint’s money quote:
The other side cannot stand behind a rule that they have flagrantly violated themselves.
You may also be interested in:
Yeah, it was definitely all scripted out. DeMint was just up there, going through the motions to offer an amendment he knew would be struck down, with the intent of revealing the hypocrisy of those who blocked a vote on the amendment. And he did a good job. I can hardly believe how willingly the Senate President agreed that numerous other clauses of the bill violated rule 16, and how she didn’t seem to care.
I like DeMint.
He’s certainly better than Fritz Hollings.
What I find amazing is how nonchalant these people are about this charade. I guess I thought the US Senate was not yet to the point of openly and nakedly wielding power regardless of any kind of sense of law or limitations.
Colin, there is a reason I consider myself an anarchist and cynicism towards mankind play a large part in that!
i am a former democrat the democrats are brought by the banksters even
barney frank member of council on foreigb relations and chalrley rangel so called liberals CFR WAS started by the rockefellers f*ck the democrats
Its outrageous that our congressmen and senators are flagrantly blocking our country’s ability for transparancy and ability to be a soveriegn country.
Each and everytime this happens we must do our civic duty and write them to protest this behavior.
Then, if it happens again, vote them out.
I want my country back and I want politicians who protect and serve the AMERICAN PEOPLE, not all the other interests they serve.
>> I’m not one to give any credit to conspiracy theories, but this all strikes me as one giant game played the Democrats (and others, I’m sure) in order to block a Federal Reserve Audit.
You need think about it. Despite the emails, the overwhelming evidence showing global warming is happening hasn’t changed.
“The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don’t cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.
>>post edited by mod to remove spam link in username<<
Global warming is a figment of Al Gore’s FINANCIAL Well being. Anyone who chooses to believe this nonsense wasn’t around for the snow storms this winter.
Gore and his hinchmen have made MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS on this farce and stand to make many more, right along with GE and others.
Wake up, people….stop acting like lemmings!!!!
I love it when people cite snow storms to refute climate change.
More interesting is when someone cites snow storms to refute climate change in a discussion about the Federal Reserve.
I’m going to be first to call Jane a spam bot. It probably looks for keywords like “Democrat” and posts its payload.
“I love it when people cite snow storms to refute climate change.”
Kind of like when people cited hurricanes and record heat to support it.
Now THAT’s interesting! “muscle relaxer”‘s url link really is a spam entry. The sig link links to a user account on another forum with adds in the profile (and no posts). I’m deleting the link.
Darius: yes we are all well aware there are irrational people on both sides of the debate.
Well, you may be, Atanamis, but I’m not sure about some others.
It’s not irrational to conflate weather and climate. It’s quite natural. It is counterintuitive to expect that global warming could cause extreme cold weather. We’re not all climate scientists and most people don’t pay much attention because climate science doesn’t affect our everyday lives. It’s not surprising that people would cite record heat waves as evidence for global warming, or record snowfall as evidence against.
Hi,
Hope this email finds you in good spirits.
The email below is pretty explanatory. If not, understand NY FED Reserve admitted electronic negotiable instruments are worthless.
Know what that means?
Alvie
Federal Reserve Bank
New York
“From: ucclaw-l-bounces[-at-}lists{-dot-]washlaw.edu
On Behalf Of Joseph{-dot-]Sommer[-at-}ny{-dot-]frb.org
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:15 AM
To:xxx-xxx-xxx
Subject: Re: [Ucclaw-l] Electronic PromissoryNotes
If I were confronted with an “electronic promissory note”, I would walk very slowly
away and break into a run as soon as I can.
They are a logical impossibility, along with electronic chattel paper and UCC 7 electronic
warehouse receipts.
The word “electronic” is miserably defined in all the statutes. But we all kinda sorta know
what it means: something in a computer, rather than in some more fixed medium. Of course, a
computer is made of matter and energy, just like a slip of paper or the side of a cow. So it
must mean something special to be “in a computer.”
And it does! Most records are stably associated with a particular agglomeration of matter which–if it is not realty–can be
physically transferred from one person to another. This includes paper, cows, and DVDs. If the piece of paper or Old Bossy or
the DVD is uniquely distinguishable from any other piece of paper or cow or DVD that bears the same data structure, we have the basis for a system of negotiability.
However, computer records are not stably associated with any particular piece of matter.
Instead, they are stably associated with a system, which contains many pieces of matter amongst which the record may be sitting, at any
given moment. Or the record could be sitting in 12 places in the system; it makes no difference. You don’t need a unique piece of
matter to uniquely identify an obligation—there is no unique matter (or energy) associated with the record. You just need an authoritative registry.
Hence the logical impossibility of an electronic promissory note. “Promissory note” means unique piece of matter. “Electronic” means
that there is no unique piece of matter, and we’re dealing with authoritative registries.
UCC 8 gets this right. It has two property systems that rely on unique pieces of matter (registered and unregistered certificates), and
two systems that rely on authoritative registries (transfer agents and securities intermediaries.)
The cotton warehouse system gets this right, and talks in great detail about authoritative registries. UCC 7, 9 and UETA screwed up.
They are bad law—literally incomprehensibly bad law.
The courts will probably eventually define 7, 9, and UETA into registry systems of some kind.
But until then, I would treat electronic negotiability systems as if they were rabid cows.”