S1619 summary from Open Congress:

A bill to establish the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to establish the Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities, to establish a comprehensive planning grant program, to establish a sustainability challenge grant program, and for other purposes.

S1619 status from govtrack.us:

This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the Senate as a whole. Although it has been placed on a calendar of business, the order in which legislation is considered and voted on is determined by the majority party leadership. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Aug 6, 2010 6:34AM]

complete Sec. 3 Purposes from the text of S1619 from Thomas, Library of Congress:

[Please Note:  Most of the links from Thomas, Library of Congress, appear to "time out."  If the link doesn't work, go to Thomas.gov, select "bill number" search, and enter S1619 in the search box.]

The purposes of this Act are–
(1) to facilitate and improve the coordination of housing, community development, transportation, energy, and environmental policy in the United States;
(2) to coordinate Federal policies and investments to promote sustainable development;
(3) to encourage regional planning for livable communities and the adoption of sustainable development techniques, including transit-oriented development;
(4) to provide a variety of safe, reliable transportation choices, with special emphasis on public transportation and complete streets, in order to reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil;
(5) to provide affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities, and to make the combined costs of housing and transportation more affordable to families;
(6) to support, revitalize, and encourage growth in existing communities, in order to maximize the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure and preserve undeveloped lands;
(7) to promote economic development and competitiveness by connecting the housing and employment locations of workers, reducing traffic congestion, and providing families with access to essential services;
(8) to preserve the environment and natural resources, including agricultural and rural land and green spaces; and
(9) to support public health and improve quality of life for the residents of and workers in communities by promoting healthy, walkable neighborhoods, access to green space, and the mobility to pursue greater opportunities.

selected Sec. 4 Definitions from the text of S1619 from Thomas, Library of Congress:

(2) CENSUS TRACT- The term `census tract’ means a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county, delineated by a local committee of census data users for the purpose of presenting data.

(4) COMPLETE STREET- The term `complete street’ means a street that enables all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with disabilities), and motorists, to use the street safely and efficiently.

(5) COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL PLAN- The term `comprehensive regional plan’ means a plan that–
(A) identifies land use, transportation, community development, housing, economic development, environmental, energy, and infrastructure needs and goals in a region;
(B) provides strategies for meeting the needs and goals described in subparagraph (A), including strategies for–
(i) providing affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities;
(ii) reducing growth in vehicle miles traveled, in order to reduce traffic congestion and regional greenhouse gas emissions from transportation;
(iii) encouraging economic competitiveness and economic development; and
(iv) increasing the connectivity of the region by increasing public transportation ridership and improving access to transportation alternatives; and
(C) prioritizes projects for funding and implementation.

(13) LOCATION-EFFICIENT- The term `location-efficient’ characterizes development, housing, or neighborhoods that integrate land use, mixed-use housing and commercial development, employment, and transportation–
(A) to enhance mobility;
(B) to encourage transit-oriented development;
(C) to encourage infill development and the use of existing infrastructure; and
(D) to reduce growth in vehicle miles traveled and the transportation costs and energy requirements associated with ownership or rental of a home.

(23) SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT- The term `sustainable development’ means a pattern of resource use designed to create livable communities by–
(A) providing a variety of safe and reliable transportation choices;
(B) providing affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all income levels, ages, races, and ethnicities;
(C) supporting, revitalizing, and encouraging the growth of communities and maximizing the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure;
(D) promoting economic development and economic competitiveness;
(E) preserving the environment and natural resources;
(F) protecting agricultural land, rural land, and green spaces; and
(G) supporting public health and improving the quality of life for residents of and workers in a community.

(24) TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT- The term `transit-oriented development’ means high-density, walkable, mixed-use development (including commercial development, affordable housing, and market-rate housing) that is within walking distance of and accessible to 1 or more public transportation facilities.

organizations in support of S1619 from MAPLight.org:

American Institute of Architects
American Public Transportation Association
American Public Works Association
Children’s Defense Fund
Habitat for Humanity
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging
National Association of Realtors
National Housing Trust
National League of Cities
Policylink
Sierra Club
Trust for America’s Health
U.S. Conference of Mayors
U.S. Green Building Council

public opinion on S1619 from WashingtonWatch.com:

cover page of Agenda 21 from the United Nations:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.

from the UN Agenda 21 preamble:

1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.

from The United Nations Millennium Papers - Issue 2, page 5 [pdf]

Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth. [or sustainable development or Livable Communities]

from the Bible, New American Standard Version:

But He [Jesus] replied to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ “And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? (Matthew 16:2-3)

It was also given to him [the beast, the antichrist] to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (Revelation 13:7-8)

Further reading:

S1619 The Livable Communities Act of 2009, Library of Congress

H.R.4690 Livable Communities Act of 2010, Library of Congress; the House companion bill

Agenda 21 Table of Contents, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Agenda 21, The U.N. Plan for Your “Sustainable” Community biblical analysis by Berit Kjos, 1998

UN Agenda 21 – Coming to a Neighborhood near You political analysis by Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild at The American Thinker, 2009

The Bible, NASB, Book of Revelation, Chapter 13

The Bible, NASB, Book of Daniel, Chapter 2

The bible, NASB, Book of Daniel, Chapter 7

First, we have the Messiah worshipers who applaud whatever their hero says – even when he says that some people want to repeal Obamacare.

From that rare commodity, an honest democrat, Representative John Dingell (D-MI), while discussing deaths due to our current healthcare system:  [emphasis added, HT to Michael LeMieux, added post-post]

Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people [I’m sure he meant 300 million] in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

Next my buddy Jim at Chestnut Tree Cafe has a post up.  Here’s a snippet:

Now, here’s the thing. In a broad, general sense, and setting some overheated hyperbole aside, I agree with all of these people. The recently-enacted “health care reform” is indeed a terrible idea, and it is indeed unconstitutional. It will indeed increase the sway of the central government over all our lives, and it will indeed hasten the economic collapse of the US. What I don’t get is what’s unique about it, and why it is so intensely upsetting to what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call “the right.”

Has the FedGov not already set the current configuration of American “health care?” Where did the whole odd concept of health “insurance” come from, except WWII-era government controls on income (and the subsequent exemption of that form of compensation from taxation)? Where was the explosion of rage when Saint Dubya decided to create a federal benefit for prescription medicine?

Then J.D. Tuccille has written a piece titled What’s good for the goose that starts this way:

Many years ago, I had a law school professor who opened his very first lecture by telling us, “law is violence.” His point was that any use of the law — or of government power in general — involves force or the threat of force. That professor and I disagreed on many issues, but we both knew that to call for the passage of a new law or the enforcement of an existing one is to invoke men with guns, handcuffs and prisons — and, ultimately, to be willing to kill in order to achieve a desired goal. So it strikes me as absurd to see members of Congress — professional makers of law — get their knickers all knotted because some of the people affected by controversial health care legislation have responded with harsh words, disturbing letters and even bricks and bullets.

His “bricks” link contains the following:

The lawmakers voiced what one senior aide who was present described as “serious concern” about their security in Washington and in their home districts when they return this weekend for spring recess.

What do you suppose Thomas Jefferson would say to that?  I think he’d say the following – again:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

But my favorite reaction – by far - comes from down south via an AP story:

HAVANA (AP) — It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

Hey, if Castro approves, how can we complain?

Now parents have another issue to ignore. [Thanks to Pamela Geller who broke this story.]

• Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change.
• OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground – working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond.
• Winter 2010 internships (dates are flexible depending on your school’s schedule)
• The Internship requires a commitment of 12 hours per week
• Credit must be approved by your school ahead of time

Thus begins an application being given to high school students, recruiting them to take a ten-week course on community organizing.   It includes the following recommended reading:

• Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky
• The New Organizers, Zack Exley
• Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy, Rinku Sen
  
• Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle, Zack Exley, Huffington Post
• Dreams of My Father Chicago Chapters, Barack Hussein Obama

In other words, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do.  He’s taking over the minds of young Americans, creating the political machine of the future, and using tax-payer-funded public schools to do the job.

You gotta give it to him: Obama knows how to organize.

If this doesn’t motivate you to get your kids out of the public school system, and home school them,  then you are beyond hope … and change.

Child endangerment.  That must be serious, because the story was married to another about a woman who was giving alcohol to minors, two of whom had to be treated at a local hospital.

So what did these Cressy criminals do that they were arrested and their mugshots broadcast to the world?  What was the danger to their children?  Were they drugged or abused?  Were they locked in a back room, cut off from the world?  Are they illiterate?

No.  There have been no allegations that the children have suffered in any way, but given Montgomery County’s history of high-handed interference with parental rights, it’s no surprise that the parents were arrested anyhow – on an anonymous tip, of course.

The evil and nefarious crime that these parents committed was a failure to submit paperwork, emphasis on submit.  The superintendent of the Fonda-Fultonville Central School (FFCS), which I reluctantly and repugnantly confess is my alma mater, Dr. Richard Hoffman, told the same TV station that, “We follow the law.”  And the law, of course, states that parents who have the audacity to reject the public school system in favor of educating and raising their own children must submit a curriculum for the superintendent’s approval.  Hoffman said this has now been done and the Cressy’s curriculum has been approved – but the parents were still arrested.

This demand for blind adherence to the letter of the law is eerily reminiscent of the story of Matthew Whalen , the Troy Eagle Scout who was suspended for keeping a survival kit with a 2″ pocketknife locked in his car on school grounds.  As Whalen’s father so eloquently stated:

“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for some intelligence on the part of administrators to use discretion and judgment in their daily decisions,” said Bryan Whalen. “Otherwise, what are we paying them for?

“You could have a trained monkey or a computer sitting there just spitting out right and wrong and never any gray areas. That’s just not the way the world works,” he told Foxnews.com.

I’d wager that discretion and judgment are not in the curriculum to train school superintendents.  They’re probably not in the FFCS curriculum, either, but that’s to be expected.  They’re much too busy developing the popular Participation in Government class (PIG), where the kids learn how to apply for welfare and food stamps.

And then, of course, the administration has to develop and document policies for doing strip searches:

Strip searches may only be conducted by an authorized school official of the same sex as the student being searched and in the presence of another district professional employee who is also of the same sex as the student.

[Note to Hoffman:  You might want to re-think this same sex requirement in fairness to your homosexual teachers and/or students.]

If [sic] every case, the school official conducting a strip search may [sic] have probably [sic] cause – not simply reasonable cause – to believe the student is concealing evidence of a violation of law or the district code.

[Note 2 to Hoffman:  You might also want to run these policies by the English department before posting them.  A couple years ago I sent an email pointing out multiple typographical and grammatical errors on your website, but this situation has obviously not improved.]

Proper English aside, the real issue underlying this whole arrest scenario and the complete disruption of the Cressy family, of course, is power.

Whose Kids Are They?

Do they belong to the state?  The state obviously thinks so, just like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty proposal, which would “give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.”

This mindset conforms with the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, the socialist agenda behind church transformation, health care reform, education reform, and welfare reform – in short, the long-planned  “transformation” of our free society.

Rest assured that if you challenge this mindset, you might be arrested just like the Cressy’s.

Whose Kids Are They?

Did you sign on as short-term parents? Do your responsibilities end when the kids are five and you can turn them over to the state babysitter?

Whose Kids Are They?

I applaud Richard and Margie Cressy for doing what most parents are too fearful, selfish, or brainwashed to even attempt.

I deplore the actions of Dr. Hoffman, the Fonda-Fultonville Central School, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and  Montgomery County Child Protective Services for flexing their muscles to make an example of the Cressy’s.  All have over-stepped the bounds of their authority, demonstrating everything abhorrent in power-hungry, egotistical bureaucrats.

Whose Kids Are They?

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
(Psalms 127:3)

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

To change Senate rules requires a two-thirds majority.  (Never mind that this change of the Senate rules doesn’t have that majority.  The Senate Parliamentarian said it’s okay.)  But to change this bill after it’s passed, they’ll need that super majority.

So as I understand this, if when the Death Panels Advisory Boards start creating rules about who is worthy to receive health care and who should just quietly pass away, even if someone in Congress has a change of heart and decides to stop playing God, they’ll need to convince two-thirds of the rest of the Senate and the House to also stop playing God, to even talk about rescinding some of that Death Panel’s Advisory Board’s power.  Fat chance of that ever happening.

Read the rest of this Alice-in-Wonderland-story here.

Update:  Cato Institute has a new piece that explains Death Panels in detail, proving that Sarah Palin was right.

The FDIC’s board voted Thursday to require banks to pay at the end of this year the amount they would owe the FDIC over the next three years. The agency collects insurance premiums from all banks, which it uses to reimburse depositors in failed banks. Washington Post

This is just insane!  Unless the FDIC gives exceptions, banks which are already financially unstable will be forced into bankruptcy!  Think about it this way:  You are eking out a living for yourself and have bought a nice car that you are still making payments on.  Basically, you are living paycheck to paycheck.  Your bank calls you up one day and says, “Oh, by the way, we need you to pay three years worth of car insurance within the next two months, or else we will repossess your car.”  What the heck do you do?  Pay for three years worth of insurance, or give up the car? Doctor Bulldog & Ronin

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.

As I haven’t had time to keep Obama’s dictionary up to date (dodging through all the smoke & mirrors is a dangerous and time-consuming process) I’ve decided to finish it right here and now. I think these two last entries should cover just about anything the man might say.

Entry #8: no = yes

Entry #9:  yes = no

Just throw money. [Read the rest of my latest rant at Examiner.com.]