Tell Your Senators To Oppose S. 181, The Lily Ledbetter Act

On January 15, 2009, the Senate voted 74 to 23 to proceed with the Lily Ledbetter Act. I documented this and one other destructive piece of legislation in a previous blog entry here:

Gender Equity Frivoulous Lawsuits Will Once Again Jam Our Legal System
84rules
January 8, 2009

The Democrats in Congress are hell-bent on inflicting this wasteful, destructive legislation on us once again. The Lily Ledbetter Act opens the door wide for all kinds of lawsuits since the language of the bill permits anyone to be a vicitm of discrimination.

Remember back in the late 80's when our court system was so jammed with frivolous lawsuits that hardened criminals were being set free simply because there was no space on the court dockets to try their cases and they were being held too long while waiting for a "speedy, public trial?" Well, the Lily Ledbetter Act and its companion, the Paycheck Fairness Act, are threatening to bring us back to those days.

According to Eagle Forum:

Please note that S. 181 is different than the House passed version of the Lilly Ledbetter bill, H.R. 11. S. 181 is worse. Not only will it overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007), which upheld the timely filing of claims of alleged pay discrimination, S. 181 would also expand the class of potential plaintiffs to anyone "affected by" discrimination. A plausible reading of this language means a spouse or heir who receives pension checks and was not a victim of discrimination would have standing to file a lawsuit. This is a dangerous addition to an already destructive bill. At a time when more than 11 million Americans are unemployed, the highest unemployment rate in sixteen years, these bills would expose large and small companies to vast new liabilities extending back decades. What our economy needs now is for businesses to hire more workers in America, but they are not going to do that if it means exposing themselves to expensive and frivolous litigation. The only things these two bills will stimulate are more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States.

The big concern here is that businesses will be more reluctant to hire workers, especially women or members of any other group that may try to take advantage of the poorly worded provisions of the Lily Ledbetter Act. I wouldn't blame any business that did so.

Further, these two pieces of legislation would only serve to make some lawyers rich at the expense of the American consumer who would ultimately foot the bill for these frivolous lawsuits.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has proposed an alternative piece of legislation. It is S. 166, the Title VII Fairness Act.

Please contact your Senators and ask them to oppose S. 181 and support S. 166.

You can reach your Senators on-line here:

Congressional Email Directory

And the Eagle Forum entry on-line here:

Senate To Vote On S. 181
Eagle Forum
January 19, 2008

Petronomics 101

I am almost amazed that there has been no major outcry from the American consumer about the price of gasoline. After all, it is the life blood of our economy.

But the price keeps going up and up and up. Not because of any "greedy" oil companies (their profit margin is a lowly 6%) but because of two reasons:

1) Increasing Global Demand
2) Decreasing Supply

Either one of these by themselves will drive prices up, but a combination of both will be like launching prices with JATO packs. What we have is a combination of both. The global demand is something that is out of our control. We simply cannot tell India and China that they have to stop using so much oil as it is the life-blood of their economies too.

The decreasing supply on the other hand, is something we could do something about, if only the leftist Dems (and a few Republicans) in Congress would get off of their high horses and join the rest of us in reality.

Lt. Col. Oliver North's most recnt column deals with these topics. From TownHall.com:

While Washington's political elites in both parties have debated and dithered, the price of crude oil has risen to $123 per barrel -- nearly double what it was at this time last year. The average cost of a gallon of gas at the pump is approaching $4 per gallon. Some analysts now are predicting that the price of a barrel of oil could approach $200 in the next two years -- and that gasoline could be $6 a gallon. An equal amount of diesel may cost truckers as much as $7.50.

But, when Congress tried to do something about it, this happened:

Ethanol: The Side Effects
84rules
April 29, 2008

And this:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
84rules
March 13, 2008

And Lt. Col. North continues:

The cost of crude oil is out of sight and climbing. Petrodollars are funding a radical Islamic jihad being waged against us. Here at home, the cost of everything from fuel to food is going up, and we're sending out of the country capital needed to resuscitate an economy that is, at best, sluggish and, at worst, foundering. The majority in Congress has responded by proposing tax increases for domestic energy production, suggesting new mandates on producers, demanding that coal-fired electric plants be shut down, and whining that foreign governments need to increase oil production -- while opposing exploitation of reserves here at home. In a news conference two weeks ago, President Bush criticized Congress for blocking efforts to expand domestic oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And this week, in a noteworthy understatement, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel observed, "We have here, in this nation, resources that we are not utilizing." No, really? The newest oil refinery in the United States was built by Marathon in Garyville, La., in 1976. Since then, every effort to construct new facilities has been thwarted by protests and lawsuits from "environmental" groups and government red tape. It has been 12 years since the last nuclear reactor came on line to generate electrical power in the United States.

But not all in Congress are so blinded by PC idiocy:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has proposed a realistic solution: the Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008. Her bill would permit exploitation of more than a trillion barrels of U.S. territorial oil and nearly 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- more than the combined hydrocarbon reserves of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya and Iran. The measure also would streamline the process for building new refineries and clean, safe nuclear power plants, as well as funding to develop alternative fuels. But none of that -- and the consequent reduction in energy costs -- ever will benefit American consumers, unless Congress acts.

The longer we wait to get a comprehensive energy plan, the higher gas prices will go and the less money we will have to research and convert to alternative sources later on.

Please write to Congress and ask them to stop being so short-sighted and to support the Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Petronomics 101
Lt. Col. Oliver North
TownHall.com
May 9, 2008