Vote Count Tally Patriot Act Fails 277-148-Update Passes

Here is a link to all of the votes for the Patriot Act and the breakdown, May 26,2011. Bill Passes and goes to the President. The latest two were the final votes.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-990&tab=votes

Earlier Votes Below:

UPDATE:Passes  Click here for breakdown 275-144

Update: Passes the Senate Feb 15.. Click above for the Senate vote.

Previous vote Feb 8 below.

H R 514 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      8-Feb-2011      7:04 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
BILL TITLE: To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011…

  YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 210 26   5
DEMOCRATIC 67 122   4
INDEPENDENT        
TOTALS 277 148   9

Click on Blue  Sort Below for Individual Votes for Complete Breakdown

Vote Details  From Gov Track:

Vote

[Sort]

District

[Sort]

Representative

[Sort by Name] [Sort by Party]

This was a sneak attack that I would have thought better of the Republicans. There are certain provisions that are very troublesome. Let us get them corrected. So much for the posting of bills 72 hours prior to voting.

The three provisions, incidentally, were for surveillance of non-citizens, roving wiretaps of multiple phones owned by a suspect, and the “library records” provision giving the FBI access to, among other things, medical and business records, which apparently was the sticking point for many Republicans voting no. Via Hot Air

Meanwhile, some new Republican Representatives refused to vote for the bill both out of concerns about the bill and frustration at the rushed renewal process. Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), one of the Republican freshman who voted “no”, complained that he “didn’t know anything about (the vote) until today.” Rokita continued:

In a free society you have to be very careful as to taking away the civil liberties of the American people…. Even if the bill is well intentioned and the law is well intentioned it can be used against innocent people. So that was my concern.

These provisions should have debate and any new checks and balances to prevent abuse and protect civil liberties.  Contact your Representative today to make clear that you oppose PATRIOT extension (H.R. 514) and demand meaningful reform of the PATRIOT Act! More here at E.F.F.

Supreme Court Ginsburg: Health care law won’t be fast-tracked for review

Yes, the  Supreme Court Progressive who under our present Health Care System allows her to remain here on earth. Apparently she cares little for the rest of us. She has defied the odds with her Pancreatic cancer diagnosis. No doubt she has gotten the very best treatment. At 77, Obamacare would no doubt rule her treatment as not cost-effective for her age.

Ginsburg, the champion of Eugenics, no doubt would just as well see us “translate” sooner rather than later with the death panels. She would have us have less than she. Lets take a ride back and hear her words regarding the need to eliminate the undesirables. “Populations we don’t want too many of”. First the very young…next?

Americans should not expect a case examining the constitutionality of the health care law to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Lisner Auditorium Thursday night.

Ginsburg, speaking with NPR’s legal correspondent Nina Totenberg, said any legal challenges to the law will have to work themselves up to the nation’s highest court through “the ordinary route.”

The issue has received national attention in the past week since a district court in Florida ruled the law unconstitutional Monday, leaving many speculating that a Supreme Court ruling might be expedited.

“The court itself is a reactive institution,” Ginsburg said. “We don’t decide ‘we better get this or that case sooner rather than later.’” More at GW Hatchet

Unmanned stealth drone X-47B takes first test flight

 

Some good news here… Thanks George. We got this one going down the line before you left. Its biggest selling point, though, is the ability to take off from, and land back on an aircraft carrier. This will give it a much greater range than other remote-controlled aircraft.

US defence company Northrop Grumman has completed the first test flight of its new X-47B stealth drone.

The tailless, fighter-sized unmanned aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California, and stayed in the air for 29 minutes. It climbed to an altitude of 5,000 feet and flew a few racetrack-style patterns to prove its maneuverability.

The prototype jet marks a new breed of drone — one that straddles a middle ground between a UAV and typical stealth bomber. Unlike propeller driven UAVs, such as the Predator and Reaper, the X-47B is virtually invisible to radar and flies at much faster speeds. But it’s also significantly smaller than the firm’s own B-2 Bomber, and is unmanned too.

More here at Wired UK

NLRB says it is now open season on your boss

At first glance, it would appear that the employee has some merit in this dispute with their employer. Making disparaging comments on Facebook would seem to be a freedom worth supporting. That would be if Face Book was limited to a few friends.

In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving workers and social media, the National Labor Relations Board has accused a company of illegally firing an employee after she criticized her supervisor on her Facebook page.

Here is the rub. Most States are “Hire At Will”. One did not need a reason to terminate. I am sure this will make lots of Lawyers very happy. Another reason to sue.

any hiring is presumed to be “at will”; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals “for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,” and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work”

Not so anymore. With this new ruling and, taking this to its logical conclusion, apparently one may trash one’s employer to any extent. Where is the limitation? Of course most of us have no doubt trashed our boss in a fit of peek. Up to now, we did it at our peril. These comments were done discreetly.Now it appears to be open season. Is it now permissible to damage a company’s reputation? I would not have expected less from the NLRB. Here tis:

 

Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, said, “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”

This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.

Moreover, the board faulted another company policy, one prohibiting employees from making “disparaging” or “discriminatory” “comments when discussing the company or the employee’s superiors” and “co-workers.”  More here NY Times

%d bloggers like this: