PDA

View Full Version : Is this 'Obama birth certificate protection act'?




lynnf
05-24-2009, 08:39 PM
scumbags at work....


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99107

Bill would prohibit compelling executive branch from releasing documents


WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.

The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."



...


lynn

anaconda
05-24-2009, 08:47 PM
scumbags at work....


Bill would prohibit compelling executive branch from releasing documents


WASHINGTON A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.

The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."



...


lynn

What is the stated reason for this bill?

lynnf
05-24-2009, 09:11 PM
What is the stated reason for this bill?


remember there was nothing patriotic about the "Patriot" act!


from a bill summary:

Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 - Prohibits a federal entity (an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the federal government), in any matter arising under federal law, from compelling a covered person to testify or produce any document unless a court makes specified determinations by a preponderance of the evidence, including determinations: (1) relating to exhaustion of alternative sources, (2) that the testimony or document sought is critical; (3) that disclosure of the information source's identity is necessary; and (4) that the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information. Allows a court, in making the last of those determinations, to consider the extent of any harm to national security.


...
lynn

anaconda
05-24-2009, 11:48 PM
remember there was nothing patriotic about the "Patriot" act!


I get that. But at least the stated reason was to catch evildoers and make us safer. What's the stated reason for this bill? I don't get it.

asimplegirl
05-25-2009, 12:28 AM
I don't trust anything from WND. They have been proven to be liars and fear mongers so many times it is stupid to even link them.

lynnf
05-25-2009, 09:22 AM
I get that. But at least the stated reason was to catch evildoers and make us safer. What's the stated reason for this bill? I don't get it.


http://fas.org/sgp/congress/2009/freeflow.html

here's a quote from John Conyers, apparent chair of the House Judiciary Committee:

"Members of the House, the Free Flow of Information Act creates a
qualified privilege to protect journalists from being compelled to
disclose confidential sources or other than nonpublic information that
they have collected in the course of their reporting."

this being said, keep in mind that loopholes sometimes allow for application of a law in ways that it wasn't intended -- sometimes these loopholes are accidental and sometimes they are intentional, and sometimes a bill is changed at the last minute to do something other than the stated "intention".

another thing to consider is that journalists don't need protection anymore -- their corporate owners stymy any real investigation and can give any protection needed, so this legislation is suspicious.


lynn

lynnf
05-25-2009, 09:24 AM
I don't trust anything from WND. They have been proven to be liars and fear mongers so many times it is stupid to even link them.

state your case, tell us the details of the "lies" that you claim.

lynn

Reason
05-26-2009, 01:58 AM
i don't trust anything from wnd. They have been proven to be liars and fear mongers so many times it is stupid to even link them.

qft

BeFranklin
05-26-2009, 02:13 AM
Looks like the more authoritarian users of this forum hate wnd. Wonder why.

Sandra
05-26-2009, 05:27 AM
The bill only exists at WND. Is there a link to it at the congressional websites? I don't see it.

Sandra
05-26-2009, 05:39 AM
This is an amendmend to further protect whistleblowers. Also WND is down this morning. Farrah must have written another fake story and they're revising it ... AGAIN!



H.R.985
Title: To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] (introduced 2/12/2007) Cosponsors (29)
Related Bills: H.RES.239
Latest Major Action: 6/6/2007 Referred to Senate subcommittee. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.
House Reports: 110-42 Part 1, 110-42 Part 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/14/2007--Passed House amended. (There is 1 other summary)

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - (Sec. 2) Expands the types of whistleblower disclosures protected from personnel reprisals to include disclosures without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, forum, or prior disclosures made to any person by an employee or applicant for employment, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is a violation of any law.

(Sec. 3) Defines "disclosure" as a formal or informal communication, not including a communication concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise discretionary authority unless the employee providing the disclosure reasonably believes that it evidences: (1) any violation of law; or (2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

Defines "clear and convincing evidence" as evidence indicating that the matter to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain, for purposes of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) reviews of prohibited personnel practices.

(Sec. 4) Provides that any presumption relating to the performance of a duty by an employee with personnel authority may be rebutted by substantial evidence.

Codifies the legal standard (i.e., disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts) for determining whether an employee or applicant for employment has a reasonable belief of the validity of their whistleblower disclosures.

(Sec. 5) Includes as a prohibited personnel practice the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement.

Prohibits any agency from: (1) implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if it does not contain a specified statement of employee rights and obligations; or (2) conducting an investigation (other than that necessary to the agency's mission) of an employee or applicant for employment because of any protected whistleblower activity.

(Sec. 6) Includes as an agency exempt from whistleblower restrictions the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Requires the removal of any agency or unit by the President from whistleblower protection coverage to be made before any personnel action is taken against a whistleblower at that agency.

(Sec. 7) Expands the authority of the MSPB to discipline an employee who takes adverse personnel action against a whistleblower if it finds that the protected activity was the primary motivating factor in such employee's action.

(Sec. 8) Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study on certain security clearance revocations and to report to Congress on such study.

(Sec. 9) Allows an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment who seeks corrective action from the MSPB for an alleged prohibited personnel practice to bring legal action in federal district court for de novo review and seek a jury trial, if the MSPB fails to issue a timely final order or decision.

Allows the MSPB to award interest and reasonable expert witness fees as compensatory damages.

(Sec. 10) Prohibits adverse personnel actions against an employee of a covered national security agency (i.e., Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and any other executive branch agency determined by the President to have as its principal function the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities) for making whistleblower disclosures to an authorized Member of Congress or executive branch official or to the Inspector General of the covered agency that employs the whistleblower.

Requires: (1) the Inspector General to investigate any claim of adverse personnel actions against an employee of a covered agency; and (2) the head of such agency to make a determination of whether a prohibited personnel practice has taken place and take corrective action.

Authorizes a whistleblower to seek judicial review of an adverse determination by an agency head.

(Sec. 11) Requires the head of a civilian executive agency, within 180 days of an employee complaint, to determine whether a private contractor has subjected an employee whistleblower to a reprisal and to either issue an order denying relief or take corrective action. Allows such employee whistleblower to request a jury trial in a federal district court and seek compensatory damages if the agency head does not issue an order or take corrective action.

(Sec. 12) Extends federal whistleblower protections to individuals holding or applying for a position in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

(Sec. 13) Modifies the definition of "abuse of authority" with respect to prohibited personnel practices against a whistleblower relating to scientific and other research to include: (1) any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis; (2) the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical, or technical information; (3) any action that restricts or prevents publication of scientific material; and (4) any action that discriminates for or against any employee or applicant on the basis of religion (as defined in this Act).

(Sec. 14) Makes the provisions of this Act effective 30 days after enactment (except for TSA employee whistleblower provisions which are effective immediately upon enactment).

lynnf
05-26-2009, 06:01 AM
The bill only exists at WND. Is there a link to it at the congressional websites? I don't see it.

once again, your knee-jerk reaction has been a disservice to you. are you so eager to shill for Obama that you jump without checking?

here is the link you ask for:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+Boucher++Rick))+0 0113))

and, if you had bothered to look at the thread I wouldn't have to do this, I repeat the link from my previous post that includes the quote from Conyers which he was making before the Congress as testimony

http://fas.org/sgp/congress/2009/freeflow.html

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2009

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 985) to maintain the free flow of information to the public
by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of
information by certain persons connected with the news media.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 985

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,



...

lynn

PatriotG
05-26-2009, 06:52 AM
http://www.restoretherepublic.org/?p=2002

Sandra
05-26-2009, 07:37 AM
once again, your knee-jerk reaction has been a disservice to you. are you so eager to shill for Obama that you jump without checking?

here is the link you ask for:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+Boucher++Rick))+0 0113))

and, if you had bothered to look at the thread I wouldn't have to do this, I repeat the link from my previous post that includes the quote from Conyers which he was making before the Congress as testimony

http://fas.org/sgp/congress/2009/freeflow.html

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2009

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 985) to maintain the free flow of information to the public
by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of
information by certain persons connected with the news media.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 985

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,



...

lynn

The bill, the way it was described, only exists on WND! Blogs are now taking the link to WND down after they decided to read it themselves.

torchbearer
05-26-2009, 08:08 AM
//

Sandra
05-26-2009, 08:56 AM
Lynnf, WND took the article down! They also wiped every link to it.

BeFranklin
05-26-2009, 09:27 AM
The bill only exists at WND. Is there a link to it at the congressional websites? I don't see it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111ZmRc0z::

Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

HR 985 RFS


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

Sandra
05-26-2009, 09:33 AM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111ZmRc0z::

Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

HR 985 RFS


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

WND claimed it was something else.

BeFranklin
05-26-2009, 09:40 AM
WND claimed it was something else.

You mean "obama certificate protection act" with a question mark?

You said it didn't even exist as a bill when I replied to you.

Sandra
05-26-2009, 11:13 AM
You mean "obama certificate protection act" with a question mark?

You said it didn't even exist as a bill when I replied to you.


Why don't you READ the bill. Please, please please.... then you'll see why Farah pulled his editorial in embarrassment. If your defense of the article was valid, He wouldn't have taken it down.

BeFranklin
05-26-2009, 11:19 AM
Why don't you READ the bill. Please, please please.... then you'll see why Farah pulled his editorial in embarrassment. If your defense of the article was valid, He wouldn't have taken it down.

I looked at it. The title ? was sensational, but that doesn't mean the bill isn't interesting.

PatriotG
05-26-2009, 01:55 PM
http://www.restoretherepublic.org/?p=2002

Potsed the bill on the site earlier today, and,
interstingly, our site took a major hit today. Completely down, no idea why.:confused:

lynnf
05-26-2009, 06:19 PM
Why don't you READ the bill. Please, please please.... then you'll see why Farah pulled his editorial in embarrassment. If your defense of the article was valid, He wouldn't have taken it down.



I have a better idea: why don't you read post #6 in this thread -- I don't expect you to understand it, but at least try!


lynn