Senator Scott Brown -Treachery be thy name

December 4, 2012 in Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party, Treaties, UN CRPD Treaty

treach·er·y  (trch-r)

n. pl. treach·er·ies

1. Willful betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust; perfidy.
2. The act or an instance of such betrayal.

   Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don’t have brains enough to be honest

                                – Benjamin Franklin

 

In September the Heritage Foundation posted the following Story:

Senate Conservatives Gather Enough Votes to Block Lame Duck Treaties

Lachlan Markay

September 21, 2012 at 9:28 am

A group of Senate conservatives has gathered enough support to block any treaties that come up for a vote during the lame duck session.

A total of 36 Senators pledged, in a letter drafted by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) to Majority and Minority leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), to “oppose efforts to consider a treaty during” the lame duck session.

Because treaties require a two-thirds majority in the Senate to reach the president’s desk, the group of Senators will be able to block any treaties considered after the Nov. 6 election.

“The writers of the Constitution clearly believed that all treaties presented to the Senate should undergo the most thorough scrutiny before being agreed upon,” the letter states. “The American people will be electing representatives and senators in November, and the new representatives carrying the election mandate should be afforded the opportunity to review and consider any international agreements that are outstanding at the time of their election.”

Some Senators had expressed hope that their house would ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (commonly known as the Law of the Sea Treaty) in a lame duck session. The treaty was blocked earlier this year by Senators who noted that it would cede some level of U.S. sovereignty to an international body, force the United States to forgo some level oil and gas royalty revenue, and would produce few tangible benefits.

The Heritage Foundation’s Steve Groves testified on LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A U.N. treaty on persons with disabilities may also be considered during a lame duck session. Lee this week blocked an attempt to pass that treaty by unanimous consent. “For various reasons we don’t think any treaty should come up during the lame duck time period and we will continue to oppose any treaty passage,” Lee said. “If it is true that it is too fast to move a treaty through during a lame duck, then it’s also too fast to move it through now.”

Here is a link  to Lee’s letter to Reid and McConnell: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106565831/Lee-Toomey-lame-duck-letter

 As you can see from the foregoing link,  Senator Scott Brown was a signatory to the Pledge that clearly stated that , “We request that no treaties be brought to the Senate floor during a lame-duck period, and will oppose efforts to consider a treaty during this time.”

 Today, our Senator Scott Brown broke his pledge, voted for the CRPD Treaty and demonstrated his treachery.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Resolution of Ratification (Resolution of Ratification Treaty Doc. 112-7 )
Vote Number: 219 Vote Date: December 4, 2012, 12:06 PM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Resolution of Ratification Rejected
Treaty Number: Treaty Doc. 112-7
Treaty Title: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and signed by the United States of America on June 30, 2009 (the “Convention”)

 

Vote Counts: YEAs

61

  NAYs

38

  Not Voting

1

 

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

 

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea 
Alexander (R-TN), Nay 
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea 
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea 
Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Begich (D-AK), Yea 
Bennet (D-CO), Yea 
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea 
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea 
Blunt (R-MO), Nay 
Boozman (R-AR), Nay 
Boxer (D-CA), Yea 
Brown (D-OH), Yea 
Brown (R-MA), Yea 
Burr (R-NC), Nay 

Cantwell (D-WA), Yea 
Cardin (D-MD), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Casey (D-PA), Yea 
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay 
Coats (R-IN), Nay 
Coburn (R-OK), Nay 
Cochran (R-MS), Nay 
Collins (R-ME), Yea 
Conrad (D-ND), Yea 
Coons (D-DE), Yea 
Corker (R-TN), Nay 
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay 
Crapo (R-ID), Nay 
DeMint (R-SC), Nay 
Durbin (D-IL), Yea 
Enzi (R-WY), Nay 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Franken (D-MN), Yea 
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea 
Graham (R-SC), Nay 
Grassley (R-IA), Nay 
Hagan (D-NC), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hatch (R-UT), Nay 
Heller (R-NV), Nay 
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay 
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay 
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay 
Inouye (D-HI), Yea 
Isakson (R-GA), Nay 
Johanns (R-NE), Nay 
Johnson (D-SD), Yea 
Johnson (R-WI), Nay 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting 
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay 
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea 
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea 
Leahy (D-VT), Yea 
Lee (R-UT), Nay 
Levin (D-MI), Yea 
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea 
Lugar (R-IN), Yea 
Manchin (D-WV), Yea 
McCain (R-AZ), Yea 
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea 
McConnell (R-KY), Nay 
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea 
Merkley (D-OR), Yea 
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea 
Moran (R-KS), Nay 
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea 
Murray (D-WA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Yea 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Paul (R-KY), Nay 
Portman (R-OH), Nay 
Pryor (D-AR), Yea 
Reed (D-RI), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Risch (R-ID), Nay 
Roberts (R-KS), Nay 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Rubio (R-FL), Nay 
Sanders (I-VT), Yea 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Sessions (R-AL), Nay 
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea 
Shelby (R-AL), Nay 
Snowe (R-ME), Yea 
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea 
Tester (D-MT), Yea 
Thune (R-SD), Nay 
Toomey (R-PA), Nay 
Udall (D-CO), Yea 
Udall (D-NM), Yea 
Vitter (R-LA), Nay 
Warner (D-VA), Yea 
Webb (D-VA), Yea 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea 
Wicker (R-MS), Nay 
Wyden (D-OR), Yea 

 

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00219

 

Prisonor Sex Change – Taxpayer To Pay For It!

September 6, 2012 in Anarchy, MA, Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party, Socialist, Tax Hike

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered state prison officials to provide taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.
Michelle Kosilek was born male but has received hormone treatments and now lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990.
 [yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8WO-MzoSYs’]
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide sex-reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate.

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity.

In his ruling Tuesday, Wolf found that surgery is the “only adequate treatment” for Kosilek’s “serious medical need.”

“The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care,” Wolf wrote in his 126-page ruling.

Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing Kosilek to have the surgery would make him a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.

But Wolf, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, found that the security concerns are “either pretextual or can be dealt with.” He said it would be up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

Diane Wiffin, a spokeswoman for the prisons department, said the agency would have no immediate comment on the ruling.

“We are reviewing the decision and exploring our appellate options,” Wiffin said.

In a telephone interview last year with The Associated Press, Kosilek said the surgery is a medical necessity, not a frivolous desire to change his appearance.

“Everybody has the right to have their health care needs met, whether they are in prison or out on the streets,” Kosilek said. “People in the prisons who have bad hearts, hips or knees have surgery to repair those things. My medical needs are no less important or more important than the person in the cell next to me.”

Wolf noted in his ruling that the Department of Correction’s own medical experts testified that they believe surgery was the only adequate treatment for Kosilek.

The department’s ex-commissioner Kathleen Dennehy testified that providing Kosilek the surgery would present insurmountable security concerns, but Wolf said Kosilek had proven that those purported concerns masked the real reason for denying surgery: “a fear of controversy, criticism, ridicule and scorn.”

Kosilek’s lawsuit has become fodder for radio talk shows and lawmakers who say the state should not be forced to pay for a convicted murderer’s sex-change operation — which can cost up to $20,000 — especially since many insurance companies reject the surgery as elective.

Inmates in Colorado, California, Idaho and Wisconsin have sued unsuccessfully to try to get the surgery, making similar arguments that denying it violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Wolf noted that Kosilek’s gender-identity disorder has caused Kosilek such anguish that he has tried to castrate himself and twice tried to commit suicide, including once while on Prozac.

Kosilek’s lead attorney, Frances Cohen, called the decision courageous and thoughtful.

“We feel very grateful that the judge listened very carefully to the medical experts and has given Michelle Kosilek what the prison doctors had recommended,” Cohen said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/massachusetts-judge-approves-taxpayer-funded-sex-change-for-inmate/#ixzz25hGS23CI

Senate race in Massachusetts A Toss-Up – Larry Sabato

July 26, 2012 in Elizabeth Warren, Senate, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party

The Seat in 6 States Could hold the Key.

Senate race in Mass. costliest in the US this year

In Nevada, Republican Sen. Dean Heller and his challengers — one Republican and several Democrats — have pulled in close to $16.4 million, while in Montana, Democratic Sen. John Tester and the GOP candidates hoping to unseat him have raised nearly $14.8 million.

The totals collected in other closely watched Senate contests including Nebraska (nearly $9.7 million) and North Dakota (about $7.1 million) also fall far short of Massachusetts, according to FEC records.
[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBzXoxwxZB8′]
The Massachusetts totals are even more impressive given that neither Brown nor Warren have loaned their campaigns any money.

The $46.7 million raised in the Massachusetts Senate race also tops the nearly $40.8 million collected by candidates running for Massachusetts governor in 2006 election cycle, when Democrat Deval Patrick was elected, as well as other high-profile U.S. Senate elections in the state.

By comparison, as of the end of June, Brown reported total donations of more than $19.9 million, while Warren has pulled in more than $24.5 million, in what could end up being the most expensive Senate race in the country, not counting money raised and spent by outside groups.

The totals include nearly $2.5 million Brown collected from political action committees and the more than $440,000 Warren accepted from PACs.

Both campaigns have criticized their opponents’ fundraising.

The Brown campaign has tried to portray Warren, who has received donations from Barbra Streisand and Danny DeVito, as part of a Hollywood and liberal elite, and someone who doesn’t represent most Massachusetts residents.

During the most recent quarter, Warren raised about 60 percent of her larger donations from outside Massachusetts, while Brown received about 40 percent of his larger donations from outside the state.

The Warren campaign in turn has highlighted contributions Brown has collected from Wall Street, saying he’s beholden to big banks.

The contributions come in donations as small as $10 or $20 up to the maximum allowed under federal campaign finance law. Donors are allowed to give up to $2,500 for primary and another $2,500 during the general election.

Both campaigns say they’ll have enough money to get their message out before Election Day.

One reason why both candidates are stockpiling such huge stockpiles of cash is an agreement they signed earlier this year designed to discourage outside groups from running attack ads on television, radio and the Internet.

Still, the mind-boggling sums raised by both candidates have left some voters scratching their heads.

“Is it necessary to raise that amount?” said Herb Lozano, a 23-year-old youth coordinator from the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston. “I don’t know anyone who would give $2,500 to a Senate candidate.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/senate-race-in-mass-costliest-in-us-this-year/#ixzz21ke36IBm

Megyn Kelly – Could UN arms treaty infringe on US Constitution

July 5, 2012 in Constitutional, DICTATORSHIP, Gun Control, President Obama, Propaganda, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party, US Sovereignty

Backed By Obama To disarm America!!!!!!!!

Wake Up fools!!!!

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puje7KfcqDc’]

 Could UN arms treaty infringe on US Constitution?

 Jul 3, 2012 – 5:26 – Will agreement take away Americans rights?�

 

Gun Control is Coming – 2nd amendment being Sold out

July 5, 2012 in Congress, Constitutional, Gun Control, Treaties, United Nations by carlos

Obama Makes Recess Appointments Even Though the Senate Isn’t in Recess and Senator Brown Backs Appointment

January 5, 2012 in Anarchy, Constitutional, MA, Scott Brown, Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party

The Obamarites are claiming that the president  made Recess Appointments. However, according to the official Senate calendar,  the Senate “convened at 12:00 p.m. for a pro forma session” on January 3d.

“This means that officially, technically, and according to the rules and procedures of the United States Senate, it is still in session. This tactic [pro forma secession] was invented and used first by the Democrats to block President Bush recess appointments, and it was successful, because legally the President can not make appointments while the Senate is in session.”

  Therefore, all of President Obama’s appointments are unconstitutional.

The following article by the Heritage Network expounds further on this deliberate abuse of the Constitution.

A Tyrannical Abuse of Power: Obama Attempts to Appoint Cordray to CFPB

The Heritage Network

Todd Gaziano

January 4, 2012 at 12:26 pm

In a revelation that is quite shocking to anyone who knows anything about the 100-plus years of precedent on the recess appointment power or the separation of powers, the White House today announced that the President planned on making a purported recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is a position the Senate has refused to confirm Cordray for, and it is also of note that the White House announced this momentous decision in an official tweet from communications director Dan Pfeiffer.

Heritage’s Diane Katz has explained why that position should remain unfilled until the agency’s powers are modified, but the alleged recess appointment is outrageous no matter what position it would supposedly fill. What is shocking is that the Senate is not in a recess that would allow a recess appointment, and it can’t be under the Constitution, even if many Senators are not in D.C.

You can read the entire story here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/04/a-tyrannical-abuse-of-power-obama-attempts-to-appoint-cordray-to-cfpb/

Meanwhile Senator Brown once again breaks away from the Republican Party to Back Obama’s Unconstitutional  Appointments.

BOSTON (AP) — U.S. Sen. Scott Brown said he supports President Barack Obama’s decision to name Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer watchdog despite the objections of Brown’s fellow Senate Republicans.

“I support President Obama’s appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams,” Brown said in a statement.

 

You can read the entire article here: http://www.eagletribune.com/boston/x191088862/Sen-Brown-supports-Obamas-consumer-chief-pick

You can call Senator Brown in Washingtonand to agree or disaagree  at : (202) 224-4543

or in  Boston at:   (617) 565-3170

State Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, Carlos Hernandez Quoted in the Daily Caller Regarding Scott Brown

October 7, 2011 in Senator Scott Brown Versus The Tea Party

In 2010, he was the tea party poster boy. In 2012, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown may not get so much as a nod of acknowledgement from tea party groups.

Brown shocked the country back in 2010 when he beat his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, and was elected to the state’s Senate seat vacated by the late Teddy Kennedy. The Tea Party Express paid to run pro-Brown ads. FreedomWorks activists campaigned for him.

In short, Scott Brown was the tea party movement’s first electoral victory. But now that he’s up for re-election for a full six-year term in 2012, tea party activists tell The Daily Caller they’re not going to bother putting together the same operation that swept him into office the first time.

That’s not to say tea partiers will not vote for Brown, or even put up much of an effort to oppose him since a serious primary challenger has yet to be found. The movement has matured into realizing that sometimes the “least of two evils” — as one activist put it — is necessary in a traditionally blue state like Massachusetts.

But don’t expect tea partiers to be happy about it.

“Scott Brown has disappointed us a few times,” Carlos Hernandez, state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, told TheDC. “So are we going to go out there and hold signs for him everyday? I don’t think so.”

“Now, does that mean we’re not going to hold our nose and vote for him? No, because the other option is not an option,” added Hernandez, referring to the Democrat roster challenging Brown. (Poll: Brown in statistical dead heat with Elizabeth Warren)

Hernandez’ sentiments were also echoed by national tea party representatives TheDC talked to. One prominent tea party activist said that “while he won’t be a major target for defeat … he also won’t be getting anywhere near the support that helped sweet him into office.”

Read the entire story here:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/as-scott-brown-fights-for-re-election-tea-party-groups-vow-to-sit-this-one-out/