Categories
2002 iraq war authorization Congress house Intelwars repeal war powers

House votes to repeal 2002 Iraq War authorization in effort to reclaim congressional war powers

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of revoking the 2002 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) on Thursday, in a move aimed at returning war powers to Congress that were ceded to the president following 9/11.

What are the details?

The effort, led by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), passed 268-161, with 49 Republicans joining all but one Democrat in voting for the repeal. Proponents argue that the authorization granted under President George W. Bush — for the purpose of military engagement in Iraq — has been abused by occupants of the Oval Office since its passage 19 years ago and utilized to extend far beyond its original purpose.

“Three presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, have used this permission to drag out conflicts that will get us into new ones,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said on the House floor prior to voting in favor of the legislation, The Washington Post reported.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), another proponent, argued, “Repeal is crucial because the executive branch has a history of stretching” [the authorization’s legal authority], the Chicago Sun-Times reported. “It has already been used as justification for military actions against entities that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist dictatorship simply because such entities were operating in Iraq.”

The New York Post reported that Lee told her colleagues, “Once we pass a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, we must keep up our fight to repeal the 2001 AUMF so that no future president has the unilateral power to plunge us into endless wars.”

“We can’t afford to leave this in place indefinitely,” she added. “For two decades, it has been in place. This is our opportunity to restore our constitutional role.”

The New York Post reported that opponents of the measure argued that repealing the 2002 AUMF “could hinder US counterterrorism efforts, noting it was used as part of the legal rationale that allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to move forward with the January 2020 drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said on the floor, “This feels like yet another political effort to undo one of President Trump’s boldest counterterrorism successes: using the 2002 AUMF to remove Soleimani from the battlefield. Soleimani was Iran’s mastermind of terror for decades.”

President Joe Biden voted in favor of the AUMF as a Senator in 2002, but has since expressed his regret for doing so. The White House supports the repeal effort passed by the House.

Share
Categories
Claims Congress freedom Intelwars Muslim Rashida tlaib speech Women

Rep. Rashida Tlaib claims ‘freedom of speech doesn’t exist for Muslim women in Congress’

Far-left Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) declared Thursday to her 1.4 million Twitter followers that “freedom of speech doesn’t exist for Muslim women in Congress,” after her fellow Muslim female colleague Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) faced backlash from her own party after appearing to equate the U.S. and Israel to terrorist organizations earlier in the week.

What are the details?

Tlaib, who along with Omar is a household name after numerous controversial statements and membership in House Democrats’ progressive “squad,” tweeted:

“Freedom of speech doesn’t exist for Muslim women in Congress. The benefit of the doubt doesn’t exist for Muslim women in Congress. House Democratic leadership should be ashamed of its relentless, exclusive tone policing of Congresswomen of color.”

Fox News noted:

Tlaib and Omar were the first Muslim women elected to Congress in 2018 and, along with other members of the progressive Squad, have been more critical of Israel, especially during the recent 11-day conflict with Hamas that left more than 250 dead, the vast majority Palestinians.

On Monday, Omar sparked outrage after telling her own 1.2 million Twitter followers, “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice.”

Omar’s remarks drew sharp condemnation from across the political spectrum, including from at least a dozen fellow House Democrats. The Minnesota representative then clarified her comments while slamming her Democratic colleagues for calling her out.

“It’s shameful for colleagues who call me when they need my support to now put out a statement asking for ‘clarification’ and not just call. The islamophobic tropes in this statement are offensive. The constant harassment & silencing from the signers of this letter is unbearable.”

The same day, Democratic leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) issued a joint statement saying “there is no moral equivalency between the U.S. and Israel and Hamas and the Taliban,” adding that they “welcome” Omar’s clarification.

The House’s Progressive Caucus issued a statement of their own defending Omar. The message penned by Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) reads:

Rep. Omar is a deeply valued members of the Progressive Caucus. Her voice is critical and necessary, both in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Democratic Caucus as a whole.

We cannot ignore a right-wing media echo chamber that has deliberately and routinely attacked a Black, Muslim woman in Congress, distorting her views and intentions, and resulting in threats against Rep. Omar and her staff. We urge our colleagues not to abet or amplify such divisive and bad-faith tactics. Members of the Democratic Caucus owe it to each other to pause, reflect, and engage directly with each other when misunderstanding arise, and stand together against cynical attempts to divide our caucus.

Share
Categories
Congress filibuster Intelwars Joe Manchin nuclear option senate democrats us senate

Sen. Joe Manchin still opposes ending the filibuster, even as Democrats throw a tantrum after GOP blocked Jan. 6 commission

Progressive activists and several Democratic senators are throwing a tantrum and yet again are demanding an end to the filibuster after Republicans blocked a bill last week to create a “9/11-style” commission to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.), like an exhausted parent, is telling them “no” for what seems like the millionth time.

After the Jan. 6 commission bill was filibustered, Manchin released a joint statement with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) imploring Republicans to work with Democrats to reach a bipartisan agreement to form the commission. But reporters insisted on hounding Manchin with questions on whether he would continue to oppose ending the filibuster.

“I’m not separating our country, OK?” an exasperated Manchin told them. “I don’t know what you all don’t understand about this. You ask the same question every day. It’s wrong.”

The 73-year-old lawmaker, who has the distinctive reputation of being the last moderate Democrat in the U.S. Senate, said ending the 60-vote requirement in the Senate would be tantamount to destroying the government by removing the need for both parties to cooperate to advance legislation.

This is at least the seventh time Manchin has made his position unambiguously clear since last July when he told CNN that then-candidate Joe Biden’s openness to killing the filibuster was “bulls**t.”

“The whole intention of Congress is basically to have a little bit of compromise with the other side,” Manchin said July 23. “Our job is to find common and cooling ground, if you will, to make something work that makes sense.”

But after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election and since Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans, Manchin has been asked about the filibuster again, and again, and again every time it becomes apparent that Republicans will oppose major pieces of President Joe Biden’s left-wing agenda.

Even an April 7 op-ed Manchin wrote titled, “I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster,” has not stymied the questions on his position, which were renewed as Senate Democrats prepare to go to political war this summer.

In June, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is expected to bring up major pieces of the Biden agenda in the Senate. The Democratic overhaul of U.S. elections, the Equality Act, and gun control are all on the table as Schumer lays the groundwork to blame the Republican minority and the filibuster for stalling progress during Biden’s first term ahead of the midterm elections.

“We have also seen the limits of bipartisanship and the resurgence of Republican obstructionism. … Senate Democrats are doing everything we can to move legislation in a bipartisan way when and where the opportunity exists,” Schumer wrote in a letter to his Democratic colleagues.

“The June work period will be extremely challenging. I want to be clear that the next few weeks will be hard and will test our resolve as a Congress and a conference,” he said.

Several Democratic senators are already resolved to blame Republican obstruction and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the filibuster for every failed Democratic effort in the weeks to come.

“Filibustering a bipartisan commission regarding the January 6 insurrection is a three-dimensional way to make the point that the filibuster is primarily a destructive force in American politics,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said last Tuesday.

The following Friday, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Senate Democrats should not suffer Republicans using the filibuster.

“I think we should not perpetuate McConnell’s bastardization of the Senate filibuster,” he said.

It’s unclear what Senate Democrats think they can do tangibly to circumvent the Republican minority’s filibuster threats with both Manchin and Sinema opposed to changing the rules.

For now, it appears Democrats will rely on pressure from their base to change Manchin’s mind.

“For some of my colleagues on the Democratic side, who support the filibuster in the extreme, we’re going to have to have an explanation,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, told The Hill. “Look at the extreme. It is just indefensible.”

More than 50 progressive activist groups have banded together to create that pressure, issuing a joint statement last Friday calling on Democrats to end the so-called legislative “veto” of the Republican minority.

“The path forward is clear: The filibuster must be eliminated as a weapon that a minority of senators can wield to veto popular democracy-protecting bills,” the statement said.

But without Manchin’s support the filibuster will stay. Progressives and journalists have been badgering him about his position on the filibuster for nearly a year now.

He hasn’t changed his mind.

Share
Categories
Anarchist protesters Antifa Congress Intelwars Nancy mace Nancy mace home vandalized Pro act

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace’s home vandalized with anarchist messages

Police in Charleston, South Carolina, are investigating after U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s home and property at Daniel Island was vandalized with graffiti on Memorial Day.

“In the early morning hours of Memorial Day, my home, where I’m raising my two children, was vandalized with Antifa symbols and profanity,” Mace, a Republican, tweeted Tuesday morning.

“Although my kids and I are thankfully fine, these criminal acts are unacceptable no matter your politics,” she said.

Mace shared photos of her house, walkway, and sidewalk defaced with anarchist symbols and slogans.

“All politicians are bastards,” one message said, a riff on the “All cops are bastards” slogan popular with anarchists and anti-authoritarian protesters.

“No gods no masters,” another message said.

“Pass the PRO Act,” another one stated, referring to a Democratic bill that would strengthen labor unions by overriding state right-to-work laws.

Mace thanked law enforcement for investigating the act of vandalism and noted this is the second time her home was targeted “in the last few months.”

Last year, during her campaign for Congress, an unknown person scratched an expletive into her car door.

“There is a significant difference between nonviolent protests and criminal acts of intimidation and vandalism,” she said. “I’m concerned for my neighbors who’ve been impacted by this appalling criminal behavior.”

“I also want to take a moment to thank those same neighbors; so many have reached out to offer their assistance and support. I cannot thank the Charleston community enough,” she continued.

“As I’ve had time to digest what has happened over the last 24 hours, I also wanted to take a moment to urge people to think about their words and their actions. It’s not just social media, but our words impact real people and impact real lives. We should take it down a notch.”

U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) shared Mace’s tweet thread on Tuesday. “Acts of vandalism and hate are simply unacceptable and have no place in our society,” he said.

Charleston police are collecting camera footage from around the neighborhood to identify suspects for their investigation, WCIV-TV reported.

Police power-washed the graffiti Monday morning, but Mace told the news station that at least some of her home will need to be repainted.

“It makes me incredibly sad. I’m a Mom, I have two kids in middle school who live here at this house with me. No family should ever be treated this way,” she said.

Share
Categories
Capitol riot Congress filibuster Intelwars Jan. 6 commission senate vote Us house us senate

Six GOP senators vote for Jan. 6 commission, but 54-35 vote fails to overcome filibuster

Six Republican senators broke with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday and voted for legislation that would create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The final vote for the commission was 54 senators in favor and 35 against, short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster from the Republican minority. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted for the commission with all present Democrats.

Two Democratic senators were absent. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who is retiring after his current term, missed the vote for a family commitment but would have voted “yes,” a spokesman told NBC News.

The bill, which was negotiated by House Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and ranking member Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), passed in the House last week by a vote of 252-175, with 35 Republicans joining Democrats in favor.

The bipartisan agreement would have created a commission with 10 members, five appointed by each party, that had the power to issue subpoenas with the agreement of both the Democratic chair and Republican vice-chair or a majority vote of the committee’s members.

Republican leadership came out in opposition to the commission, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) claiming it would be “duplicative” and “potentially counterproductive” given ongoing bipartisan investigations into the events of Jan. 6 and criminal investigations conducted by U.S. law enforcement. Sen. McConnell echoed McCarthy’s concerns, called it a “purely political exercise,” and lobbied his Republican colleagues to oppose the bill.

Democrats and the media excoriated Republicans for opposing the bill, accusing them of covering-up what happened on Jan. 6 out of fealty to Trump.

Several Republicans feared the commission could be used by Democrats to politically bludgeon the Republican Party as the 2022 midterm elections approach. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told supporters in a video that the purpose of the commission was to damage Republicans.

“The Democrats control committees in the House; they control committees in the Senate. They can do investigations. Some of them already are. We’re going to learn from that. Capitol Police has already done its own commission about what went wrong that day. We’ve already learned from that,” Rubio said. “So there’s plenty of attention already being paid to this — not to mention that the media, who doesn’t stop talking about it, they’re also looking at it. So everyone’s looking at it. There’s no cover-up.”

“They have this thing that says in order to issue a subpoena, you need both the Republican and the Democratic side, evenly divided, to agree with it. But that’s not the point for politics; you don’t actually need the subpoena. All you need is a story out there saying, ‘Congressman so-and-so — they want to subpoena him or her, but they can’t because the Republicans are blocking it,'” he explained.

“And then the stories are going to be, number one, it creates this impression that maybe Congressman so-and-so did something wrong — why would they want to subpoena him? And number two, the story will be ‘Republicans are covering up the investigation into Congressman so-and-so.'”

But the Republicans who voted for the commission said an independent probe was needed for the truth about what happened on Jan. 6 to come out.

Sen. Romney said Wednesday “Republicans would be seen as not wanting to let the truth come out” if they voted against the bill. “I don’t believe that’s what’s the motivation but I think that’s the perception,” he added.

Sen. Murkowski lambasted her GOP colleagues who opposed the bill.

“We just can’t pretend that nothing bad happened, or that people just got too excitable. Something bad happened. And it’s important to lay that out,” she told reporters Thursday evening.

“To be making a decision for the short-term political gain at the expense of understanding and acknowledging what was in front of us, on January 6th, I think we need to look at that critically,” she said.

After the vote, Sen. Cassidy released a statement explaining why he voted “yes,” saying an independent commission would have guaranteed Republicans have “equal power” over the investigation’s proceedings.

“Without this commission, there will still be an investigation. But it will be a House select-committee set up by Speaker Pelosi — the nature of which will be entirely dictated by Democrats and would stretch on for years,” Cassidy said.

“I am concerned about Speaker Pelosi’s role regarding the lack of adequate security at the Capitol on the day of the vote certification. It’s hard to believe that an investigation entirely run by Democrats would fully evaluate this concern. We can be more confident that the independent commission would thoroughly investigate this issue,” he continued.

“The investigations will happen with or without Republicans,” Cassidy said. “To ensure the investigations are fair, impartial, and focused on the facts, Republicans need to be involved.”

Share
Categories
Campaign Contributions Campaign Finance Congress Facebook Facebook pac Intelwars Jan 6 riot political donations

Facebook bans donations to 147 Republicans who voted against certifying Biden’s 2020 victory

After pausing political donations for several months, Facebook’s political action committee will resume campaign contributions to members of Congress but will not donate to anyone who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election, the company told employees on Thursday.

Buzzfeed News was the first to report on an internal announcement from Brian Rice, a public policy director at Facebook, that said the decision was made after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and a review of Facebook’s contribution policies.

“As a result of our review, the FBPAC Board has decided to resume contributions, but not to any members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election following the events at the Capitol on January 6,” Rice said in an internal memo. “While a contribution to a candidate for office does not mean that we agree with every policy or position that a candidate may espouse, we believe this decision is appropriate given the unprecedented events in January.”

Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft each announced a halt to political campaign contributions in January after the riot at the Capitol. Facebook said at the time it would conduct an internal review of its donation policies before resuming political spending.

As a result of Facebook’s new policy, the company will not donate to eight senators and 139 members of the House of Representatives. All 147 lawmakers who voted against certifying the Electoral College results are Republicans, including prominent Facebook critics Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Josh Hawley (Mo.).

The contribution ban comes as a growing number of Republican lawmakers at both the state and federal level seek to break up Big Tech companies in retribution for censorship.

After Facebook’s oversight board upheld the company’s decision to deplatform former President Donald Trump, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) vowed to “rein in big tech power over our speech.” Sen. Hawley, a longtime critic of tech companies, called Facebook a “monopoly” and advocated for Republicans to take antitrust action against the social media giant.

Democrats have also expressed criticism of the power and influence of tech giants, though their criticisms differ from Republicans in that they believe social media platforms do not do enough to stop the spread of “misinformation” and want increased censorship of what they consider to be “fake news.”

Facebook currently faces antitrust lawsuits from 46 state attorneys general and two territories as well as the Federal Trade Commission.

Share
Categories
Congress Intelwars Jake ellzey special election Susan wright Texas' 6th congressional district Us house

Democrats are locked out of Texas runoff special election for US House

Democrats have been locked out of the special election for Texas’ 6th Congressional District after Republican candidates Susan Wright and state Rep. Jake Ellzey were the top two vote-earners in Saturday’s jungle primary.

There were 23 candidates running to succeed the late Rep. Ron Wright (R-Texas), who passed away at 67 in February after contracting COVID-19. Of the 11 Republicans, 10 Democrats, one Libertarian, and lone independent in the race, only the two candidates with the most votes could advance to a runoff election.

Earning the most votes was Susan Wright, Ron Wight’s widow and a longtime conservative activist who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump and won 19.2% of the vote. Coming in second place was Ellzey, who received 13.8% of the vote. Finishing third was Democrat Jana Lynne Sanchez, who fell 355 votes short of qualifying for the runoff election, crushing the hopes of national Democrats who believed they could flip the seat and expand their narrow majority in the House.

Since no Democrat qualified for the runoff election, yet to be scheduled, the 6th Congressional District will remain in GOP hands for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

It’s a bitter defeat for Democrats considering that the district has become more competitive in recent election cycles since 2012. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won the district 58-41 and then-Rep. Joe Barton (R) won 58-39 that year. In 2016, Donald Trump won the district 54-42, and in 2020 Trump’s share of the vote fell to 51-48. Still, though the late Rep. Ron Wright was targeted for defeat by Democrats in 2020, he won re-election by nine points.

Most of the Republicans running to succeed Wright campaigned on a pro-Trump platform with the notable exception of Michael Wood. Wood, a combat veteran and small business owner, ran on an explicitly anti-Trump message and was supported by Trump critics like Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).

“I don’t want to go to Congress if I have to lick Donald Trump’s boots to get there,” he told the Associated Press in an interview.

He will not go to Congress. Wood earned a measly 3.2% of the vote in Saturday’s primary, finishing in the middle of the pack but well below the expectations he set by estimating that moderate Trump-critical Republicans make up as much as 35% of the GOP voter base.

Heading into the runoff, Ellzey has the most money, but Wright has the coveted Trump endorsement and the most institutional support from the state Republican Party.

Share
Categories
Antitrust laws Big tech censorship Clay travis Congress facebook censorship Intelwars Outkick

Clay Travis to Congress: Facebook censorship removed 68% of Outkick’s audience

Clay Travis, a radio host and the founder of sports media website Outkick.com, testified to Congress on Friday about the power of Big Tech censorship, accusing Facebook of “content-based speech discrimination” against his media company.

Travis was invited by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative law to speak to the relationship Big Tech shares with the media as Congress considers legislation that would allow media outlets to collectively negotiate ad rates with tech companies like Google or Facebook.

In his opening statement, Travis provided the subcommittee with examples of how Facebook allegedly punished Outkick’s traffic for posting positive coverage of former President Donald Trump and heterodox opinions from medical experts on COVID-19 lockdowns.

On August 11, President Trump was a guest on Travis’ radio program, joining the show to discuss the importance of playing college sports in the fall. Articles covering what the president said about the NBA, the NFL, and college sports were published on Outkick’s website.

“The day after that interview Facebook tanked our traffic,” Travis said. “The next day and over the next week, Facebook removed 68% of our audience, 76% of our new users. That cost my company hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Travis provided documents to the subcommittee showing the precipitous decline in Outkick’s traffic during the timeframe he mentioned.

“To me, it was clear content-based speech discrimination,” Travis said. “Facebook didn’t like that we had the president of the United States on our radio program and they also didn’t like that the majority of the coverage of that interview was positive, which as a sports fan, it’s hard to be negative when the favor of the president is aligned with games actually being played.”

He warned Congress of the “overwhelming power” that Big Tech holds over media companies, giving a second example of how he says Facebook discriminated against certain speech.

In February, Outkick published an article covering an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine & Bloomberg School of Public Health. In the op-ed, Makary argued that herd immunity was responsible for COVID-19 cases falling and predicted that the United States would reach herd immunity against the virus sometime in April.

“Certainly some scientists and doctors agree with that, certainly some scientists and doctors disagree with that opinion. We wrote about that editorial opinion on our website,” Travis said. “Within a matter of days, we received a notification from Facebook with the downright Orwellian subject, ‘Important Notification: Misinformation Violation.’ Facebook told us we were not allowed to share the opinion of a doctor on our website because they said it was a fact-checked inaccuracy.

“It was, members of the subcommittee, AN OPINION. An opinion of a reasoned and well-learned doctor. That is what the scientific method is, we argue about what the truth is in this country with an idea that we reach a better conclusion. Facebook’s own fact-checkers labeled our article about an opinion to be factually inaccurate, which is an impossibility.”

He continued: “Who checks the fact-checkers? Our traffic declined by 80%, as you can see, as soon as Facebook found this violation. We would all be rightly concerned if the government of the United States was making these kind of decisions. My concern is all of the Big Tech companies now have the same power that China has to regulate the internet in its country.

“Instead of the government doing it, we have allowed Big Tech to do it.”

Watch:

Share
Categories
Congress gun control Hr 8 Intelwars Second Amendment Universal background checks Us house

US House passes bill to criminalize all unlicensed private firearm transfers

The U.S. House of Representatives passed an expansive gun control bill that would criminalize firearm sales, gifts, or loans between unlicensed private persons.

On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,” a bill that expands universal background checks for private firearm transactions, requires all private firearms transactions to go through a licensed dealer, effectively bans persons age 18-20 from purchasing handguns, and contains only limited exemptions for self-defense. The bill passed 227 to 203, with eight Republicans voting with the Democratic majority in favor.

Democrats and gun control advocates praised the bill’s passage, arguing the expanded background checks will help save lives.

“As a mother who lost her child to the very gun violence that every one of us have been fighting to eradicate, thank you. Thank you to all who have been fighting,” Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), vice chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and original co-sponsor of the legislation, said. In 2012, McBath’s son Jordan Davis was murdered by a gunman after an argument over loud music outside a convenience store.

“WE DID IT! At the urging of thousands of our volunteers and other gun safety advocates, the U.S. House just passed #HR8, a bill to require background checks on ALL gun sales in America with bipartisan support!” Moms Demand Action said, before urging the Senate to act.

“Background checks save lives, and during the last year, the need for them has only become clearer. Loopholes in the background check laws have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning more guns sold to people without a background check, and more guns in the hands of people who should not have them,” Everytown for Gun Safety said in a call to action campaign published after the bill passed the House.

However, opponents of the bill warn it would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms and criminalize lending or gifting a firearm to family members or friends without government approval.

“This bill would criminalize every transfer of a firearm unless it first goes through a government screening process — aka, gun owner registration — or unless the transfer fulfills one of the very few exemptions in the legislation,” Gun Owners of America said. “NOTE: Because ‘transfer’ is not defined, even handing a gun to a neighbor could be severely punished.”

H.R. 8 requires that all loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer. An individual who wanted to buy a handgun from his cousin, for example, would have to go to the gun store and have a federal background check completed before the sale is finalized. The individuals engaged in the private firearm transaction must pay the same fees, file the same paperwork, and have the same records kept as if they were buying a new gun from a licensed dealer. While the transaction is being processed, the licensed dealer will take possession of the firearm.

Under the bill, unlawful gun transfers would be a felony. David Kopel, writing for Reason, explained: “If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon. Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.”

Kopel also described how the bill would ban handgun sales to any adult ages 18 to 20:

Since 1968, federal law has said that gun stores may not sell handguns to persons under 21. 18 U.S.C. § 922(c)(1). Congress has not chosen to prohibit persons aged 18-20 from acquiring handguns elsewhere. The large majority of states allow handgun possession by persons 18-20.

Some legislators have forthrightly introduced bills to impose a ban on young adults. HR8 prohibits young adults from acquiring handguns, but does so with a clever subterfuge.

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

Further, the bill empowers the attorney general to promulgate regulations setting the minimum fees licensed gun dealers may charge to facilitate a gun transfer and explicitly prohibits the government from capping those fees. So for example, the amount a man must pay to give his brother-in-law ownership of a firearm is only limited by the discretion of the current attorney general at the direction of whoever is president of the United States.

Loans or gifts to family members are permitted only for direct relatives and only if there is no payment of any form involved.

A partial self-defense exemption to proposed gun transfer laws exists for “a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.”

There is also an exemption for “hunting, trapping, or fishing,” but no such exemption for gun loans on farms or ranches, unless the gun owner is physically present for the entirety of the transfer.

The bill now heads to the United States Senate, where it is unlikely to receive enough support to overcome a filibuster from the Republican minority.

Share
Categories
central banking Congress Coronavirus divide and conquer Fear figuring it out. government is slavery Headline News Hoax Intelwars interest rates Jerome Powell liars lockdowns markets Masters modern monetary theory panic plandemic Police State Politics Ron Paul ruling class scamdemic slaves wake up

The Fed Enabling Biden and Congress’ Destructive Agenda

This article was originally published by Ron Paul at The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 2021 will be the second year in a row in which the federal debt exceeds Gross Domestic Product (GDP). CBO also projected that this year’s federal deficit will be 2.3 trillion dollars, which is 900 billion dollars less than last year. However, CBO’s projections do not include the 1.9 trillion dollars “stimulus” bill Congress is likely to pass.

The CBO’s report was largely ignored by Congress and the media. One reason the report did not get the attention it deserves is Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s continued commitment to making sure Fed policies enable Congress to spend as much as Congress deems necessary to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus panic.

As financial analyst Peter Schiff points out, the Fed’s commitment to ensuring the government can run up massive debt means the Fed will not allow interest rates to increase to anywhere near what they would be in a free market. This is because increasing interest rates would cause the federal government’s debt payments to rise to unsustainable levels. Yet, the Fed cannot admit it is going to keep rates near, or even below, zero indefinitely without unsettling the markets. So, the Fed continues to promise interest rate hikes in the future and the markets pretend to believe the Fed. When (or if) the lockdowns end, the Fed will find a new crisis justifying “temporarily” keeping interest rates low.

The Federal Reserve has not just endorsed massive federal spending, Fed Chairman Powell has also endorsed masks, vaccines, and social distancing to defeat the coronavirus and restore the economy. It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see the Fed go full Fauci.

The overreaction to coronavirus is a cause of the explosion in federal spending and the debt we have witnessed over the last year. However, federal spending already greatly increased from January 2017 until the lockdowns. This spending growth occurred under a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and, from 2017 to 2019, a Republican House. One bright spot in Democratic control of the presidency and both houses of Congress is more Republicans will fight excessive spending and claim to be “deficit hawks.”

Republican hypocrisy in claiming to care about spending and debt only when a Democrat sits in the Oval Office is one reason why Democrats can so easily disregard debt. Another reason is the left’s embrace of Modern Monetary Theory. Modern Monetary Theory is the latest version of the fairy tale that politicians need not worry about debt and deficits as long as the central bank can monetize the federal debt.

Unless the government changes course, America will experience a crisis greater than the Great Depression. The crisis will include a final rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. There will also be much-increased price inflation. At that point, Congress will have no choice but to limit spending, although it will try to hide cuts in popular entitlement programs by “adjusting” government measures of inflation. Congress could then blame the Fed for the reduction in the value of government benefits.

Those who know the truth have two responsibilities. First, ensure they and their families are protected when the crash comes. Second, redouble efforts to spread the ideas of liberty and grow the liberty movement so politicians are pressured to cut spending and debt and to end the Fed.

The post The Fed Enabling Biden and Congress’ Destructive Agenda first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
civil rights Congress Equality act Intelwars Lgbt anti discrimination religious liberty Us house us senate

House passes the Equality Act, sweeping anti-discrimination legislation that threatens religious liberty

The House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly passed the Equality Act, sweeping legislation that would expand U.S. anti-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or self-proclaimed gender identity. Supporters say the bill will establish basic legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer Americans nationwide that will establish equal justice and fairness for all Americans. Opponents warn that the language of the bill would make mainstream traditional beliefs about marriage, biological facts about sex differences, and religious convictions on these issues punishable under the law.

The Equality Act passed on a nearly party-line vote, 224 to 206, with every Democrat and three Republicans voting in favor of the bill. A previous version of the bill passed the Democrat-controlled House in 2019 but did not advance in the Senate. The bill would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws to add explicit language including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under federal law.

“In most states, L.G.B.T.Q. people can be discriminated against because of who they are, or who they love,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the bill’s sponsor in the House, who is gay, said, according to the New York Times. “It is past time for that to change.”

The bill is a priority for President Joe Biden, who promised to champion the legislation during the first 100 days of his presidency. This version that passed the House Thursday is not expected to win enough support in the Senate to pass and be signed into law by President Biden unless Democrats take the drastic measure of eliminating the filibuster to bypass Republican opposition and pass the bill with a simple majority.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the only Senate Republican who expressed support for the 2019 bill, but she told the Washington Blade on Feb. 23 that she does not support the current version because it lacks certain revisions she requested. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) has also expressed opposition to the bill, citing the need for “strong religious liberty protections.”

While the bill is supported by constituencies including civil rights groups, pro-LGBT organizations, and multiple corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Congress, it faces opposition from religious groups and conservative activists who agree that LGBT people should be protected from discrimination, but think the Equality Act goes too far by actively discriminating against traditional beliefs on marriage, human sexuality, and the differences between men and women.

What’s in the bill?

The Equality Act is broad in scope and according to the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-LGBT activist organization, would add anti-discrimination provisions for sexual orientation and gender identity to areas of federal law including employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service.

Last June, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin also includes protections for lesbian, gay, and transgender Americans. The logic of the court was that if a man who married his same-sex partner were fired from his job for doing so, but a woman who married a man were not fired, the homosexual man was discriminated against on the basis of his sex. Likewise, if a woman who identifies as transgender and presents as a man were fired for how she dressed, but biological men at the same place of employment were not fired for how they dressed, then that transgender individual was discriminated against based on sex.

While the court’s ruling was expansive and fundamentally transformed labor law, LGBT activists contend that the court’s ruling did not go far enough and say the Equality Act is needed to codify the court’s decision not only in employment law, but in other areas as well. President Biden signed an executive order to that effect, directing federal agencies to apply Bostock to all areas of law that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. But progressives fear that a future conservative presidential administration would simply reverse Biden’s executive order, so they want LGBT people protected by explicit statute.

The Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Jury Selection and Services Act, and other laws to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. It would expand the scope of federal civil rights law to make public spaces and services like a “store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services” places that could be liable to a discrimination claim.

Additionally, the Equality Act would override the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that affords exemptions in anti-discrimination law to religious people and organizations who argue such laws infringe on their religious liberty. For example, a Christian charity accused of discriminating against a transgender person in a hiring decision might claim protections under RFRA, citing religious beliefs on the nature of human sexuality, males and females, and their proper roles in a godly marriage.

The Equality Act would specifically prevent an entity from using RFRA to challenge its anti-discrimination provisions or defend itself in a claim made under the law.

Controversies

Advocates for the Equality Act say the bill is needed to extend popular protections from discriminations enjoyed by most Americans to LGBT people.

“Just as [a business] would not be able to turn away somebody for any other prohibited reason in the law, they would not be able to do that for LGBTQ people either. And we think that’s a really important principle to maintain,” Ian Thompson, senior legislative representative at the ACLU told NPR.

But critics counter that the way the bill is written would proactively discriminate against views that do not conform to the federal government’s definition of human sexuality and gender identity. The also say that because an individual’s conception of gender identity and sexual orientation are said to be fluid, lawful protections for those classes of people would necessarily be vague, unclear, and even contradictory.

“Rather than finding common-sense, narrowly tailored ways to shield LGBT-identifying Americans from truly unjust discrimination, the bill would act as a sword — to persecute those who don’t embrace newfangled gender ideologies,” Ryan T. Anderson, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote in an op-ed for the New York Post opposing the bill. Anderson is the author of “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” a book that evaluates the current science on transgender issues and the proposed public policy responses. He has written extensively on sexual orientation and gender identity laws and opposes the Equality Act on grounds it would be harmful to women.

“It would vitiate a sex binary that is quite literally written into our genetic code and is fundamental to many of our laws, not least laws protecting the equality, safety and privacy of women,” Anderson argued.

He pointed to legislative text that states, for example: “An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.”

While public spaces can have separate rooms for men and women, the definition of who is a man and who is a woman is in flux. A male who identifies as a woman must be granted permission to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, or dressing rooms, or else the entity that hosts that public space, be it a business or even a church, may be liable to a discrimination lawsuit.

As explained by the Heritage Foundation, “Employers, medical professionals, educators, and religious organizations” would be forced “to allow men into women’s shelters, pay for or perform sex-change operations, and engage in speech that violates their consciences. Faith-based adoption and foster care agencies would be forced to violate their belief that every child deserves a mother and a father.” The Equality Act labels belief in traditional marriage as a “sex stereotype,” statutorily stigmatizing the convictions of hundreds of millions of Americans including Christians, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims.

Anderson also noted that the Equality Act treats refusal to perform an abortion as “pregnancy” discrimination, and because the RFRA is overridden, Christian doctors and nurses with pro-life convictions would be forced to perform abortion procedures or risk being sued without any claim to First Amendment protections as a defense.

Other medical and legal experts have raised concerns over women’s athletics and parental rights. At a virtual event hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday, Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-Mo.), a former teacher and track coach, said that if the Equality Act becomes law “we won’t have women’s sports that are fair,” referring to recent controversies over boys who identify as transgender and competing against and defeating girls in school sports.

Hartzler also warned that passage of the Equality Act could lead some parents to lose custody of their children if a child identifies as transgender but parents do not consent to “gender-affirming” treatments, which can include cross-sex hormone prescriptions or even mutilating breast or genital surgeries.

Hartzler was one of several speakers at the Heritage event, which included doctors, lawyers, and policy experts who spoke out against the Equality Act.

These points were fiercely debated in the House of Representatives before the Equality Act was passed, with Democrats accusing Republicans of making “ridiculous” claims to hide their supposed bigotry against gay and transgender Americans.

As reported by the Christian Post:

During the 90-minute House debate over the bill on Thursday, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., claimed the Equality Act posed no threat to religious freedom and that such concerns being raised by Republicans were “ridiculous.”

Maloney then accused the bill’s opponents of using religious freedom as a ruse to conceal their “pro-discrimination against gay people.”

In response to Maloney’s accusations, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, declared: “Here it is, on page 25. It says specifically, ‘The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 shall not provide a legal basis for a claim’ [against a religious discrimination charge].

“The founders said in the first right, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, you can practice your religion as you see fit. But right here in their bill today, the Democrats say ‘No you can’t,'” Jordan asserted.

The Equality Act now heads to the U.S. Senate, where Democrats would need Republican support to overcome a filibuster. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, has signaled support for changing the Senate rules to end the legislative filibuster and pass the bill, but Democrats would need a majority of senators to vote to do so, and Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are opposed to the idea.

With no Republican senator expressing support for the Equality Act, the bill will not advance for the time being.

Share
Categories
16th congressional district Adam kinzinger america first Catalina lauf Catalina lauf instagram Congress Donald Trump Intelwars

27-year-old former ‘anti-AOC’ Trump aide challenges Rep. Adam Kinzinger, calls him a ‘weak-kneed, establishment Republican’

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who has been a staunch critic of Donald Trump for years, will face a primary challenge by a former aide for the Trump administration. This week, Catalina Lauf launched her bid to oust Kinzinger by slamming the congressman as a “weak-kneed, establishment Republican.”

Catalina Lauf previously served in the Trump administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce. Now, the pro-Trump 27-year-old Lauf is preparing her own “America First” campaign against Kinzinger, whom she calls a “fake Republican,” in Illinois’ 16th Congressional District.

“I never thought I’d primary a fellow Republican, but is Congressman Kinzinger really a Republican anymore? He isn’t and we have the proof,” Lauf says in her video campaign announcement that was released Tuesday.

Lauf slams Kinzinger as a “weak-kneed, establishment Republican” who “cares more about his next MSNBC appearance than the voters who elected him.”

She claims that Kinzinger voted in line with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “one in three votes.”

“Instead of being in our fight, Adam betrayed his constituents for a life in the D.C. swamp,” Lauf says in the video that has over 570,000 views.

Lauf bashes Kinzinger for supporting a “phony impeachment hoax for a president who has already left office.”

Kinzinger was one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to charge Trump with inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot in his impeachment trial.

Lauf slams Kinzinger in the video while calling for term limits, “He said impeachment was ‘necessary to save America.’ What? You know what I think is necessary to save America, Adam? Setting term limits for people like you and the rest of your friends out. Six terms in Congress is enough.”

Lauf may have Kinzinger’s own family voting against him in the upcoming primary. There were 11 members of Kinzinger’s family who sent him a two-page letter lambasting him for voting in favor of charging Trump for the Capitol riot.

“Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God,” Kinzinger’s family wrote in a joint letter. “You have embarrassed the Kinzinger family name!”

“Adam Kinzinger cares more about getting points with the woke media than representing the people of Illinois,” she tweeted.

Lauf wrote on Twitter, “Republicans like Liz Cheney and my opponent Adam Kinzinger should be playing no role in the future of the party or our country!”

Cheney, another Republican member of Congress who voted to charge Trump with inciting an insurrection, will also face a primary opponent that also supports the former president.

Political strategist Corey Lewandowski, who was the campaign manager for a portion of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. retweeted Lauf’s video and wrote, “Strong candidate in @CatalinaLauf.”

Lauf’s platform includes tackling election integrity, gun rights, social media censorship, freedom of speech, illegal immigration, and “keeping the economy going.”

Lauf told the Chicago Sun-Times, “This will be the number one, number two most watched race this cycle. This is going to be big, because people are very engaged and people are very upset at everything that has been happening over the last six months.”

In March 2020, Lauf ran for Congress in the 14th Congressional District of Illinois, a district outside of Chicago. She captured 20% of the vote in the election, finishing third in a field of seven candidates. Former state Sen. Jim Oberweis won the GOP primary, but was ultimately defeated by Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood by less than 2%.

Lauf, who bills herself an “anti-AOC,” prides herself as the daughter of a Guatemalan immigrant mother and father who is a small-business owner.

She worked on the 2018 re-election campaign for former Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who lost to Democrat J.B. Pritzker.

Last August, Lauf and her sister Madeline were featured in a video on the opening night of last year’s Republican National Convention, where they applauded the Trump administration’s assistance to small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.


WATCH: Small business owner speaks about Trump administration’s support during COVID-19

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
$1.9 trillion coronavirus bill Biden coronavirus bill Biden stimulus Congress Intelwars Us house us senate

Republicans slam Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus bill

As President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package advances through Congress, Republicans are slamming the bill, accusing Democrats of stuffing it with wasteful pork and other progressive priorities not related to the coronavirus.

“The partisan bill Democrats are preparing is stuffed with non-COVID-related liberal goals and more band-aid policies as if the country were going to stay shut down another year,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted Monday. “We need 2021 to be different than 2020. Congress should focus on smart policies to help that happen.”

House Democrats introduced their 591-page bill coronavirus bill last Friday, which contains $1,400 stimulus checks and various other pandemic-related relief measures including expanded unemployment benefits and business loans. But Republicans say other provisions of the bill are problematic and have nothing to do with economic relief.

For instance, included in the bill is a federal minimum wage increase to $15 by 2025 that would fulfill a campaign promise from President Biden but is not directly tied to coronavirus relief. Other provisions include payouts to “socially disadvantaged” farmers, hundreds of millions of dollars for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment of the Humanities, $10 million to preserve Native American languages, a $15 billion bailout for the airline industry, and a host of other spending that was criticized by Republicans.

“The bill has over $1 trillion in bailouts, pork, and unrelated policy changes,” Senate Republicans charge in a video advertisement released Tuesday.

“Don’t let Dems tell you the ‘American Rescue Plan’ is a coronavirus relief bill,” the ad states.

While President Biden’s rhetoric supports bipartisanship, Democrats will advance the relief package in the Senate using a parliamentary procedure called budget reconciliation to avoid a filibuster and pass the bill without GOP support. They cite polls that show popular support for a coronavirus relief package and warn that Republicans are opposing their constituents by criticizing the bill. A Quinnipiac poll found that 68% of U.S. adults support Biden’s proposal while 24% are opposed.

“The vast majority of the American people like what they see in this package. And that should be an indication, or should be noted by members of Congress as they consider whether they’re going to vote for it or not,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said last week.

Those polls haven’t stopped Republican lawmakers from speaking out about their opposition to the $1.9 trillion legislation.

Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, McConnell accused Democrats of “steamrolling ahead with a massive spending plan on a completely partisan basis.”

McConnell called the package “a combination of miscellaneous non-COVID-related liberal wishlist items.”

Other Republicans share McConnell’s thinking. On Tuesday morning Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told Fox News that Democrats want to use the coronavirus pandemic as “an excuse to fulfill a lot of longstanding liberal priorities.”

In a statement Friday, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said, “House Democrats’ $2 trillion socialist boondoggle puts partisan politics first and fails to address the most pressing needs facing Americans, like getting kids back in the classroom and reopening small businesses.”

Even Republicans from outside Washington are weighing in. South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem criticized provisions of the bill that would provide funding to states and local governments facing budget shortfalls that existed before the pandemic and were exacerbated by lockdown policies that shut down local economies.

“It’s a very, very unfair bill. It bails out those states that shut down their economies. It rewards them for making people stay in their homes and for taking away a business’ right to be open and to take care of their customers and employees,” Noem said Tuesday. “It’s incredibly detrimental to our state because we made the right decisions, we trusted people.”

As for Democrats, they are confident that the Republican opposition to the stimulus bill will ultimately backfire. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Washington Post last week that Biden’s relief plan will lead to economic recovery and an end to the pandemic.

“”I think the president’s plan will work, and the Republicans should get behind it. And they will wish they had,” Maloney said.

Share
Categories
Congress Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars Ron wright death Texas us house of representatives

Texas Congressman Ron Wright, 67, dies after contracting COVID-19

Congressman Ron Wright (R-Texas) died Sunday night after contracting COVID-19. He was 67.

Wright’s office confirmed his death Monday morning in a statement announcing that he “passed away peacefully” with his wife, Susan, by his side. He is the first sitting member of Congress to die after contracting the coronavirus.

“Ron and Susan Wright shared a deep and abiding relationship with their Lord and Savoir [sic]. For that reason, Ron remained stoic in the face of his health challenges, and incredibly upbeat about the future of the state and the nation he loved so much,” the statement reads.

“Congressman Wright will be remembered as a constitutional conservative. He was a statesman, not an ideologue. Ron and Susan dedicated their lives to fighting for individual freedom, Texas values, and above all, the lives of the unborn.

“As friends, family, and many of his constituents will know, Ron maintained his quick wit and optimism until the very end. Despite years of painful, sometimes debilitating treatment for cancer, Ron never lacked the desire to get up and go to work, to motivate those around him, or to offer fatherly advice.”

According to the statement, Wright and his wife, Susan, had both been admitted to Baylor Hospital in Dallas after contracting COVID-19. Wright, who was also battling cancer, announced he had tested positive for the coronavirus on Jan. 21. In a statement, Wright said he had been quarantined since Jan. 15.

“I am experiencing minor symptoms, but overall, I feel okay and will continue working for the people of the 6th District from home this week. I encourage everyone to keep following CDC guidelines and want to thank all the medical professionals on the front lines who fight this virus head-on every single day,” Wright said at the time.

Rep. Wright is survived by his wife, Susan; his son Derek; his son Justin and wife Susan; his daughter Rachel and husband Jeff; his brother Gary and wife Janis; and nine grandchildren.

Several members of the Texas delegation in the House of Representatives issued statements offering their condolences to Wright’s family.

“Today I am deeply saddened by the loss of a good man and one of my closest friends in Congress, Ron Wright,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). “We would all have been served well by having him for a longer time walking among us, sharing his wisdom, humor, knowledge of history, experience on Capitol Hill, and his commitment to public service. Ron believed in the greatness of America and loved our shared home state of Texas deeply.”

“I’m deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Congressman Ron Wright. Ron was a man of deep faith and a tireless advocate for Texas,” said Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas). “He will be greatly missed in the delegation, may he rest in peace. We will keep his family in our prayers.”

Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas) said: “I join with all Texasns in mourning the loss of my dear friend and colleague Representative Ron Wright. Ron will be remembered as a tireless fighter for North Texas who brought his conservative principles and love of country to the United States Congress every single day. We’ll all miss his signature bowtie and warm personality in the halls of the Capitol, a presence that cannot soon be replaced. My prayers are with his wife Susan and beautiful family during this difficult time.”

Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Wright was “a fighter who passionately served the people of Texas and America.”

“May God grant Susan and his entire family solace during this very difficult time,” he added.

Share
Categories
2nd Amend. concealed carry Congress gun rights Guns capitol Intelwars Lauren boebert Self-Defense washington dc

Outspoken Republican US Rep. Lauren Boebert granted concealed carry permit in DC

After infuriating Democrats by carrying a gun on the job, outspoken freshman U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) was granted a concealed carry permit in Washington, D.C., the Hill reported.

What’s the background?

So, why did the 5-foot, 100-pound congresswoman stir up so much angst among her leftist colleagues? Well, the following tweet from Boebert — a staunch Second Amendment supporter — may have been part of it:

The video in the latter tweet shows Boebert appearing to carry a gun around the Capitol — and The Hill said members are allowed to do so.

What did the DC police chief have to say?

While the video suggested the congresswoman was armed, Boebert never has been seen with a gun, D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee said at a press conference Thursday, the outlet reported. Contee also said after the ad was released that he learned a permit application was “in the works” at the department, The Hill added.

“As we do with all our permits, if citizens are allowed to carry, then we grant them a permit,” Contee continued, according to the outlet. “In this case, she was allowed to carry, and she was granted a [concealed carry] permit. And yes, we did reach out to the office.”

Anything else?

Boebert had expressed her desire to carry a gun on Capitol grounds well before she was sworn in early last month. In fact, 21 Democrats signed a Dec. 15 letter to House Leadership requesting a “change in House Rules for the 117th Congress to ensure that Members of Congress are held to the same firearm safety rules as the public while they are on Capitol grounds.”

“Ultimately, the current regulations create needless risk for Members of Congress, their staff, members of the Capitol Police, and visitors to the Capitol grounds,” the Democrats wrote.

In response, Boebert penned her own letter — signed by “83 members and member-elects of Congress in an effort to block a gun grab recently proposed by House Democrats.”

“I refuse to give up my Second Amendment rights,” Boebert wrote. “I’m a 5-foot tall, 100-pound mom with four children and will be walking to work and serving in one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. I choose to defend my family and my life with all of the force the Constitution provides. I will not let a bunch of gun-grabbing House Democrats take away my Constitutional right to protect myself.”

Soon after, new rules for the 117th Congress did not appear to include the Democrats’ proposed ban on lawmakers carrying guns inside the U.S. Capitol building — notching a win for Boebert on her first day at work.

But the her path forward still came with its share of bumps.

On the heels of the Capitol riot, a number of GOP members were reportedly “furious” Jan. 12 upon discovering they would need to pass through metal detectors manned by U.S. Capitol Police officers in order to gain entry to the House chamber. Boebert refused to comply with officers searching her bag before entry.

And then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the following day that the House will be considering a new rule that would impose hefty fines on lawmakers who refuse to comply with the added security measures.

Boebert’s name first hit the public consciousness in 2014 with stories about her Colorado restaurant “Shooters Grill,” where servers exercise their open-carry rights. She made even bigger headlines in 2019 by standing up to then-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who infamously declared, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47” — by telling him, “I am here to say: Hell no, you’re not.”

Share
Categories
Congress IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Matt gaetz SEAT trump

Matt Gaetz says he is willing to leave his seat in Congress to defend Trump in impeachment trial

Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz said he would be willing to give up his seat in the House in order to serve on the defense team of former President Donald Trump during his second Senate impeachment trial, should Trump ask him to do so.

What are the details?

During an interview on Steve Bannon’s “War Room Pandemic” show, Gaetz explained that he and other lawmakers had already floated the idea of volunteering to defend Trump, but were told by the House Ethics Committee they could not so so as sitting members of Congress.

Bannon then asked Gaetz, “Would you then step down from Congress? Would you resign in order to defend the president…the way you want to defend him?”

“I love my district,” the congressman from Florida replied. “I love representing them, but I view this cancelation of the Trump presidency and the Trump movement as one of the major risks to my people both in my district and all throughout this great country.”

“Absolutely, if the president called me and wanted me to go defend him on the floor of the Senate, that would be the top priority in my life,” Gaetz continued, reiterating, “I would leave my House seat, I would leave my home, I would do anything I had to do to ensure that the greatest president in my lifetime—one of the greatest presidents our country has ever had, maybe the greatest president our country has ever had—got a full-throated defense that wasn’t crouched down.”

In reaction to Gaetz’s comments, Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle (Pa.) joked on Twitter, “I strongly support my colleague Matt Gaetz doing this.”

President Trump was impeached by the House last month on his way out of office, on one charge of inciting an insurrection after a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol building Jan. 6 following a rally where he spoke in protest of the outcome of the election won by now-President Joe Biden.

But the former president hit a stumbling block with his representation.

The Washington Examiner reported:

The former president is being represented by David Schoen and Bruce Castor. Trump announced his new counsel over the weekend after his previous legal team quit, allegedly due to a dispute over legal strategy. The former president supposedly wanted to focus his defense around the promotion of unverified claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, which have been overwhelmingly refuted in court. The attorneys wanted to address the legality of prosecuting a president who has left office.

Share
Categories
2021 2nd Amendment Congress Depressed Depression Intelwars Politics

H.R. 127: A New Bill In Congress Would Literally End Your 2nd Amendment Rights Permanently

If a new bill that has been introduced in Congress eventually becomes law, the 2nd Amendment will still be in the U.S. Constitution, but for all practical purposes the rights that it is supposed to guarantee will be dead and gone.  H.R. 127 was submitted on January 4th, and if you have not read it yet you can find the full text right here.  It contains a lot of technical language, and so in this article I am going to try to break down what it means very simply.  Now that the Democrats control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, there is going to be a major push to ram through some form of gun control legislation.  If it is not this bill, it will be another one, so we need to be diligent.

One of the biggest things that H.R. 127 would do is that it would create a national firearms registration system that would literally be accessible by anyone

HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by federal, state, and local governments, including the military – even the GENERAL PUBLIC! The system will track the make, model, and serial number of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they are being stored.

So if your neighbor, a co-worker, or someone that just wanted to rob your home wanted to know how you were armed, all they would have to do would be to look it up in the firearms registration system.

This bill would also apply retroactively.

Within three months, you would have to report to the government where you bought all of your guns, when they were purchased, and where they are currently being stored.

Needless to say, if the government knows where all of your guns are being stored, it would make it that much easier to grab them from you at some future date.

H.R. 127 would also require all gun owners to be federally licensed.

That would mean that owning a gun would no longer be a right.  Instead, it would be reduced to a “privilege” that the government could take away at any time.

According to the bill, the licensing procedure would include “a psychological evaluation”

The licensing requirement mandates that the license applicant undergoes a criminal background check, and then submits to a psychological evaluation to determine whether the person is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm. Successful licensees must show they have an insurance policy which will cost $800.

I know a lot of guys out there that would definitely not want to go through any sort of a “psychological evaluation” by a government-approved psychologist.

And it wouldn’t just be you that would get interviewed.

According to the bill, spouses and other family members would be interviewed as well

For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’ spouses and at least two other family members or associates to “further determine the state of the mental emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.” Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter whether the individual sought help voluntarily.

The goal, of course, is to make owning guns as difficult as possible.

Democrats figure that if they can put up as many barriers to gun ownership as possible, a lot less people will end up owning them.

Thirdly, this bill would also greatly restrict the type of ammunition that you can own

Finally, HR 127 also criminalizes the possession of “large-capacity magazines” (those carrying greater than 10 rounds) and “ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.”

I know that all of this sounds utterly ridiculous, but the restrictions in this bill actually sound very, very similar to what Joe Biden has been publicly proposing

During the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden promised a long list of gun control regulations. There is a reason that Michael Bloomberg spent $125 million helping Biden in Florida and something over $600 million nationally in the general election.

The agenda includes: classifying many semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 bullets as Class 3 weapons (which can require nine months or more for approval and a $200 fee), national gun licensing, “red flag” laws that let judges take away people’s guns without a hearing, background checks on the private transfer of guns, and bans on some semi-automatic firearms that happen to look like military weapons.

Gun control is very high on the list of things that Joe Biden wants to get accomplished during the next four years.

So like I said, if it isn’t this bill, it will be another one that is similar.

They are coming for your 2nd Amendment, and they aren’t going to stop until they get what they want.

Meanwhile, this is all happening at a time when murder rates all across America are going through the roof

“Homicide rates were higher during every month of 2020 relative to rates from the previous year,” the report states, calling the 30 percent surge “a large and troubling increase that has no modern precedent.”

We have never seen major city murder rates jump by an average of 30 percent in a single year.

Things are getting really crazy out there, and many believe that 2021 will be even worse.

For almost a year, there has been civil unrest in our cities on an almost nightly basis.  As I write this, civil unrest has erupted in Rochester, New York.  We live at a time when rioting, looting, arson and vandalism have become commonplace, and the senseless violence that we have witnessed so far is just the leading edge of the storm.

Millions of Americans can see what is happening to our society and they are quite concerned.  2020 was a record year for gun sales in the United States, and dealers have reported that demand is extremely strong so far in 2021 as well.

The Democrats do not like this one bit, and they are going to do their very best to put a stop to it.

Please let your friends, family and contacts know about H.R. 127, because an all-out attack on the 2nd Amendment is coming, but at this point most people are not even aware that it is about to happen.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post H.R. 127: A New Bill In Congress Would Literally End Your 2nd Amendment Rights Permanently first appeared on End Of The American Dream.

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez Congress Gamestop trade freeze Intelwars Marsha Blackburn Rashida tlaib Robinhood Ted Cruz Wall Street

Republicans and Democrats slam Robinhood, call for congressional hearings on GameStop trade freeze

Democratic lawmakers are calling for hearings into Robinhood and other financial service companies’ decision to prohibit customers from buying or even searching for certain stocks, and some Republicans are signaling support for the effort.

Popular stockbroker services were accused of manipulating the market by angry social media users Thursday after Robinhood, a company that lets customers trade stocks for free from their mobile phones, announced that shares in GameStop, AMC Entertainment, Nokia, and other “volatile” stocks would be restricted to position-closing only. The decision came in response to an internet campaign by retail traders — non-professional individual investors who day trade to make money on the side or for fun — to attempt to raise the stock price of GameStop after hedge funds signaled their intent to short the stock.

Motherboard reported Thursday that more than half of the users on Robinhood owned at least some GameStop stock and were now blocked from buying more. Needless to say, the outcry from Robinhood customers and other GameStop traders was near instantaneous and furious, but now lawmakers are weighing in.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) called the move by Robinhood and others “absurd,” demanding a hearing in Congress on the issue.

“They’re blocking the ability to trade to protect Wall St. hedge funds, stealing millions of dollars from their users to protect people who’ve used the stock market as a casino for decades,” Tlaib tweeted.

She was joined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), another member of the progressive “Squad” in Congress and a member of the House Financial Services Committee.

“This is unacceptable,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “We now need to know more about @RobinhoodApp’s decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit.

“As a member of the Financial Services Cmte, I’d support a hearing if necessary.”

She added in a follow-up tweet that any congressional inquiry “should not be limited solely to Robinhood.”

“This is a serious matter. Committee investigators should examine any retail services freezing stock purchases in the course of potential investigations – especially those allowing sales, but freezing purchases.”

At least one Republican wants to make an effort to investigate the trade freezes bipartisan. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted his support for Ocasio-Cortez’s demand for an inquiry.

But Ocasio-Cortez is adamantly opposed to working with Cruz, who she’s repeatedly accused of “trying to get me killed” because of his objection to the congressional certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, which Democrats say incited the violence at the Capitol that day.

Another Republican senator, Tenessee’s Marsha Blackburn, called on Robinhood to “free the traders.”

“Once again Wall Street is crushing the little person on Main Street,” Blackburn tweeted. “Wall Street bet on America’s decline and got caught. Now, they want to stop hard working Americans from betting on America’s rise.”

Share
Categories
Commentary Congress Intelwars Mitch McConnell political Politics The U.S. Senate trump

Why Mitch McConnell Backed Away From Trying To Convict Trump

Mitch McConnell really wanted to convict Donald Trump and ban him from ever running for office again, but he was forced to back off.  In fact, he just voted for a motion that declared that convicting Trump at this point would be unconstitutional.  That represents a stunning reversal by McConnell, because earlier this month he was telling other Republicans that he wanted Trump gone.  Putting the pieces together, it appears that McConnell really did try to get to 67 votes so that Trump would be convicted, but political reality forced him to back down in a major way.  Now a weakened McConnell will try to move forward as the minority leader in the Senate, and the future of his political career is very much in doubt.

Once the riot at the U.S. Capitol happened on January 6th, McConnell decided that he was done with Trump and never wanted to speak to him again

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he never wants to speak to President Donald Trump again following a violent insurrection at the US Capitol on Wednesday, The Washington Post reported.

But of course at that point they had already not spoken for quite some time.

According to McConnell, the last time the two spoke was all the way back on December 15th

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he hasn’t spoken to former President Trump since the middle of December, confirming news reports that the Senate GOP leader has cut off personal contact with the former president.

“The last time I spoke with him was the day after I declared that Biden had obviously won the election after the Electoral College [voted on] Dec. 14. It would have been Dec. 15,” McConnell told reporters.

Not content to keep his feud with Trump private, McConnell took it to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

When McConnell delivered a speech in which he directly blamed the chaos at the Capitol on Trump, it made headlines all over the nation…

“The mob was fed lies,” McConnell told the chamber, which two weeks earlier had been evacuated as rioters invaded the building. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.”

Once it became clear that the House was going to impeach Trump, rumors were running rampant that McConnell was going to back a move to convict Trump in the Senate.

For example, the following comes from a New York Times article entitled “McConnell Privately Backs Impeachment as House Moves to Charge Trump”

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking.

And CNN reported that a Republican member of Congress actually told them that “Mitch said to me he wants Trump gone”…

The lobbying started in the House after the January 6 attack on the Capitol and in the days leading up to impeachment. But it’s now more focused on Sen. Mitch McConnell, the powerful minority leader who has signaled he may support convicting Trump.

“Mitch said to me he wants Trump gone,” one Republican member of Congress told CNN. “It is in his political interest to have him gone. It is in the GOP interest to have him gone. The question is, do we get there?”

So why did Mitch McConnell change his mind so dramatically?

There are three main reasons.

First of all, it became clear that there wouldn’t be a way to get to 67 votes.  As I warned yesterday, that would probably be enough to force McConnell and his allies to back down.

Voting to convict Trump without succeeding would be political suicide for McConnell and his allies and they know it.

Secondly, Trump was threatening to start his own political party if he was convicted.

The “Patriot Party” would have split the votes of conservatives in every state, and it would have made it absolutely impossible for Republicans to take back control of the House or the Senate in 2022.

In fact, splitting conservatives between the Republican Party and the Patriot Party would have ensured one party rule in Washington for the foreseeable future.

As much as McConnell would like to get rid of Trump permanently, regaining the majority in the Senate is much more important to him.

Thirdly, other Republicans in the Senate were threatening to boot McConnell from his position as minority leader if he voted to convict Trump

“No, no, no,” Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican and Trump ally, told CNN when asked if he could support McConnell if he voted to convict Trump, calling such a vote a “dangerous precedent” and adding: “I don’t even think we should be having a trial.”

“If you’re wanting to erase Donald Trump from the party, you’re going to get erased,” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Wednesday. “This idea of moving forward without Donald Trump in the Republican Party is a disaster for the Republican Party.”

McConnell is a political survivor, and he could see the writing on the wall.

So he backed off.

But if he could figure out a way to get rid of Trump without any consequences, he would pull the trigger in a nanosecond.

Unfortunately for McConnell, now that everyone knows what he tried to do, he has been greatly weakened politically.

He may survive for a while, but the days remaining in his political career are definitely numbered.

If the Republicans are not able to regain control of the Senate in 2022, I have a feeling that Senate Republicans may decide that it is time for a new standard bearer.

Of course a lot could still happen between now and then, and my regular readers already know that I am not optimistic about America’s future at all.

The rot and decay in Washington is simply a reflection of the rot and decay that is growing throughout our society as a whole.

Our country is literally falling apart all around us, and decades of incredibly foolish decisions by our leaders are now catching up with us in a major way.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post Why Mitch McConnell Backed Away From Trying To Convict Trump first appeared on End Of The American Dream.

Share
Categories
Congress constitutional amendment Intelwars Ted Cruz term limits

Sen. Ted Cruz reintroduces constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was joined by a handful of GOP colleagues on Monday in reintroducing a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress.

What are the details?

Cruz tweeted out the text of the resolution filed by himself along with Sens. Mike Braun (Ind.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Todd Young (Ind.), explaining that “the amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.”

Cruz’s office also provided background on the senator’s previous efforts to put term limits in place for federal lawmakers, noting that:

  • In 2016, Sen. Cruz and former Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) published an op-ed in the Washington Post announcing their intention to introduce a term limits amendment.
  • In 2017, Sen. Cruz first introduced a constitutional amendment mandating term limits in the 115th Congress.
  • In 2019, Sen. Cruz led a hearing as chairman of the Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on The Constitution, titled, ‘Keeping Congress Accountable: Term Limits in the United States.’ The hearing examined the use of term limits as an avenue to break the cycle of career politicians and encourage accountability in Congress.
  • In 2019, Sen. Cruz and former Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress in the 116th Congress.

What about lobbying ban?

Also in 2019, the conservative Cruz even gave a nod to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) when she called for making it illegal for members of Congress to become lobbyists after leaving office.

“Here’s something I don’t say often: on this point, I AGREE with @AOC,” Cruz wrote in reply to one of the congresswoman’s tweets. “Indeed, I have long called for a LIFETIME BAN on former Members of Congress becoming lobbyists. The Swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation?”

Esquire political editor Jack Holmes argued at the time:

If you impose term limits, particularly without a lobbying ban, you’re actually shifting the incentives for congresspeople in a bad way: since they’re only going to be around for a limited time, they’d better make career plans for afterwards. Like, say, securing a lobbying gig. That’s going to lead to poor performance while they’re in office, particularly for anyone living in their district who can’t afford a big-money campaign donation.

Share
Categories
Amnesty Amnesty legislation Biden administration Congress Illegal Immigration immigration Intelwars Joe Biden

Biden to propose amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants with no border security

On day one of his presidency, President-elect Joe Biden plans to introduce an amnesty bill that would give at least 11 million people living in the United States illegally a path to U.S. citizenship. The proposal shows Biden’s clear intention to radically depart from President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, which offered “zero tolerance” for illegal immigration.

The Associated Press reported that Biden’s plan will give migrants living illegally in the United States “one of the fastest pathways to citizenship” of any major immigration legislation proposed in recent years, but will not include provisions to tighten border security. Biden will introduce the bill, which is expected to be hundreds of pages long, after he is sworn in as president Wednesday.

On the campaign trail, Biden promised that as president he would “take urgent action to end the Trump Administration’s draconian policies” that he claimed were “grounded in fear and racism.” He vowed to end Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy of prosecuting every immigration offense, which led to migrant parents being separated from their children — a policy the Trump administration reversed after public outcry — and pledged to “aggressively advocate for legislation that creates a clear roadmap to legal status and citizenship” for illegal aliens.

The AP detailed how the Biden bill would make good on these promises:

Under the legislation, those living in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021, without legal status would have a five-year path to temporary legal status, or a green card, if they pass background checks, pay taxes and fulfill other basic requirements. From there, it’s a three-year path to naturalization, if they decide to pursue citizenship.

For some immigrants, the process would be quicker. So-called Dreamers, the young people who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children, as well as agricultural workers and people under temporary protective status could qualify more immediately for green cards if they are working, are in school or meet other requirements.

The last major piece of immigration legislation was considered by Congress under President Obama and included border security provisions in an attempt to win Republican support for amnesty. Unlike the Obama amnesty legislation, the Biden bill will not include any provisions to increase border security, a controversial decision that is all but sure to rally most Republicans to oppose the bill.

The bill also reportedly includes provisions to “address some of the root causes of migration from Central America to the United States, and provides grants for workforce development and English language learning.” Biden’s campaign website calls for a $4 billion foreign aid package for Central America purportedly to give governments in the region resources to fight gang and gender-based violence, improve their legal and educational systems, and tackle corruption.

In a closely divided Congress, Democrats will need Republican support to avoid a filibuster and advance any legislation through the Senate. It remains to be seen if the Democratic Party will engage the “nuclear option” of changing the Senate rules to end the filibuster and prevent the Republican minority from blocking major parts of Biden’s agenda, though several Democrats have indicated opposition to that extreme step.

Share
Categories
25th Amendment Congress IMPEACHMENT Intelwars mike pence Nancy Pelosi

Mike Pence tells Nancy Pelosi he will not invoke 25th Amendment against Trump, urges Congress not to ‘further divide’ nation

Vice President Mike Pence informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Tuesday that he would not invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to remove President Donald Trump from office, and urged Congress not to “further divide the nation” in reaction to last week’s attack on the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob.

What are the details?

In a letter to the speaker, Pence wrote that “every American was shocked and saddened” by the attack, before telling Pelosi, “but now, with just eight days left in the President’s term, you and the Democratic Caucus are demanding that the Cabinet and I invoke the 25th Amendment. I do not believe such a course of action is in the best interest of our Nation or consistent with our Constitution.”

The vice president explained:

As you know full well, the 25th Amendment was designed to address Presidential incapacity or disability. Just a few months ago, when you introduced legislation to create a 25th Amendment Commission, you said, ‘[a] President’s fitness for office must be determined by science and facts.’ You said then that we must be ‘[v]ery respectful of not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don’t like, but based on a medical decision.’ Madam Speaker, you were right. Under our Constitution, the 25th Amendment is not a means of punishment or usurpation.

Pence went on to add, “I urge you and every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment,” and reiterated that he would work to “ensure an orderly transition of power.”

The Washington Post reported that the vice president’s “letter came hours before the House was scheduled to vote on whether to officially call on him to declare Trump unfit for office and wrest control.”

Over the weekend, Pelosi had sent Pence what Politico referred to as “an ultimatum,” demanding that Pence invoke the 25th Amendment or the “Democrats will immediately move to force Trump from office for his role in inciting violent riots at the Capitol on [Jan. 6] linked to at least five deaths.”

The Democrat-controlled House is expected to vote Wednesday to impeach President Trump for a second time.

While the lower chamber’s first attempt to impeach the president in 2019 was shut down by the GOP-led Senate, some Republicans in the upper chamber — including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) — are now reportedly receptive to Democrats’ efforts to oust Trump due to the president’s actions before and after the attack on the Capitol.

Share
Categories
Americans armed protests break free certify election results Congress COVID-19 democracy is mob rule Donald Trump elections are selections FBI geo political government is slavery Headline News Hoax human rights Insurrection Intelwars Joe Biden Kamala Harris Law Enforcement scamdemic security officials Stop the steal Storm capitol

FBI Warns: Armed Protests Planned For All 50 State Capitols

According to the FBI, armed protests are planned for all 50 state capitols as the inauguration of Joe Biden approaches.  The FBI said in a statement: “The FBI is supporting our state, local, and federal law enforcement partners with maintaining public safety in the communities we serve.”

Supporters of President Donald Trump will descend upon the capital cities of all 50 states in advance of the inauguration if the FBI’s warning is correct. Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris are expected to be sworn in at a ceremony at the Capitol. The Biden team has already urged Americans to avoid traveling to the capital because of the Covid-19 hoax. But now, “authorities” are urging people to stay home.

Security officials have said there will be no repeat of the breach seen on 6 January, when thousands of pro-Trump supporters were able to break into the building where members of Congress were voting to certify the election result.- BBC

Not to be the ones to attempt unity, house Democrats say a vote to impeach the president will happen on Wednesday. They are accusing President Trump of “incitement of insurrection” and say the vote will be held unless Vice-President Mike Pence invokes constitutional powers to remove Trump from office. There is no sign that Pence is willing to do so.

Because Democrats hold a majority in the house, Trump is expected to become the first president to be impeached twice. This could have an impact on planned protests and it will also solidify the division the government is using to make sure the New World Order’s Great Reset is ushered in.

An internal FBI bulletin, reported by ABC News and other outlets, is also warning that one group is calling for the “storming” of state, local, and federal courthouses around the country if Trump is removed from office early and on inauguration day if he is not.

Democrats Plan To Pressure Pence To Remove Donald Trump

Violence and a show of force will only amplify the situation and cause a crackdown on the public. The best thing to do right now is to stay out of all of this.  Help others if you can, and try to do the right thing.  Stay out of this fray, stay prepared, and make sure you’re alert and use discernment. In the coming weeks, cooler heads will prevail.

The Gray Man Concept: Tips To Improve This Important Survival Skill

The solution is to leave the system and stop supporting it.

The post FBI Warns: Armed Protests Planned For All 50 State Capitols first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Capitol riots Capitol siege Congress Intelwars Protesters lose jobs Trump Supporters Us capitol

Rioters begin losing jobs following bloody Capitol siege: Teacher, real estate agent, attorney, and more suspended, fired

Demonstrators present at the U.S. Capitol during Wednesday’s raid are receiving suspensions and losing their jobs, according to various reports.

At the time of this writing, a Pennsylvania teacher, Chicago real estate agent, Texas attorney, and more have either lost their jobs or have been suspended following the Wednesday riots.

Teacher ‘temporarily relieved’ of duties

In Pennsylvania, Allentown’s Morning Call on Thursday reported that the Allentown School District has suspended one of its teachers, a male who remains unnamed at the time of this reporting, who reportedly took part at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.

In a statement, the district said, “While we all have the right to express ourselves, it is important to do so respectfully.”

The statement added, “We understand that many members of our community are upset by the image. At the same time, the district has an obligation to respect the First Amendment rights of our staff and students. Because of the emotion and controversy stirred by the events of January 6, 2021, the teacher has been temporarily relieved of his teaching duties until the School District can complete a formal investigation of his involvement.”

The outlet noted that the teacher in question was one of several people who were reportedly fired or who had been asked to resign from their positions as a result of allegedly attending the demonstration on Wednesday.

‘Got teargassed today’

According to the Houston Chronicle, attorney Paul Davis lost his job at Goosehead Insurance after he reportedly shared videos of himself at the siege on social media.

The outlet reported that the attorney was fired after he posted video of himself wearing a MAGA hat and discussed breaching the Capitol.

“Got teargassed today,” he said of the raid. “That was quite an experience.”

‘I was there to support my president’

Libby Andrews, a Chicago real estate agent, was also
fired after reportedly sharing footage from the Capitol on her social media.

In a Twitter statement, her employer, who pointed out that Andrews admitted to taking part in the riot, wrote, that it “does not condone violence, destruction or illegal activities.”

According to a Reuters report, Andrews maintained that she did nothing wrong and did not even enter the Capitol.

“I’m a 56-year-old woman, petite,” she complained. “I was not there causing trouble. I was there to support my president.”

Employees demonstrating ‘dangerous contact’ need not apply

A Maryland marketing company fired one of its employees after he was reportedly photographed wearing his company badge while taking part in the siege.

In a Thursday statement shared to its Facebook, Navistar Direct Marketing revealed the news.

“While we support all employee’s right to peaceful, lawful exercise of free speech, any employee demonstrating dangerous conduct that endangers the health and safety of others will no longer have an employment opportunity with Navistar Direct Marketing,” the firm wrote in a widely viewed post.

Share