Our Congress

Tags: Congress, Senator Tom Carpenter, bill

2nd Ammendment under assault

Ladies and Gentlemen. The Democrat controlled congress and the Obama administration are moving forward with their plans to restrict your 2nd Ammendment rights. There is a bill in the House right now that will do just that. Specifically, it will institute a national gun registry.

This is the type of legislation that gun owners were warning about. Yet there were many gun owning Obama supporters that kept trying to tell us that it will all be ok. He supports gun ownership. Blah, blah.



I present to you. H.R. 45 a.k.a. Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not
been invalidated or revoked under that title; or

(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.

(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term ‘applicable date’ means--

(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and

(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.

SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.

Congress vs. Big Oil

It really bugs me everytime I hear someone complain about gas prices and the first thing out of their mouth is "These oil companies are making record profits by gouging the little people!" Really? Is that where the blame actually lies? I don't think so. People think that companies like Exxon set the per barrel price of oil. This is not the case. Oil is traded as a commodity. The price of oil is set by people that panic and pee their pants everytime some nutball over in the Middle East rattles a sabre. It's not set by actual demand on the product. I am not even close to understanding the stock market and all of the nonsense that goes on at Wall Street. But this manner of setting oil prices doesn't make sense to me. Why should a bunch of Wall Street Weenies have that much control over something that affects every man, woman and child in America? Additionally, if Congress and the Environmentalist Whackos would get the hell out of the way, let Big Oil explore for new sources and let them drill for it in environmentally friendly ways. You might just see a decrease in gas prices. No doubt that it will take years for any new oil to impact current prices. But if we had been drilling for oil that when it was discovered 10 or so years ago, we might not be in the pinch that we are in now. Glenn Beck illustrated this in a very good way yesterday on his national radio show. In this portion of his show he parodied a Congressman grilling someone from Big Oil. I have edited it a little, however, no pertinent content was removed. You can find the full transcript here.

Mr. Big oil, we're here to talk about the high price of gasoline. How could it have possibly gotten this high?

Let me tell you what we've done here in congress.
We told you that drilling in ANWR is off limits.
We told you that drilling off the coast of Florida and California is off limits.
We told you, Mr. Big oil, that there wouldn't be any new leases for drilling in the Gulf while China and Venezuela and even Cuba pursued these leases and have just signed 100-year leases on the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
We here in congress have promised, as all three presidential candidates have also promised, to introduce and pass in the next term a cap and trade legislation bill that will increase the price of gasoline according to the EPA by an additional $1.50. Some people say it could be as high as $5 additional per gallon.
We have said that we're shutting down oil fields in Colorado.
We won't let you develop shale oil fields in several Western states.
We passed legislation that would let us sue OPEC with the full understanding that they'll never retaliate.
We have allowed environmental attorneys to sue you big oil fiends for future possible destruction of Alaskan Eskimo village which legal experts believe is the same strategy used to bring down big tobacco.
We're especially proud of our recent action to protect the polar bear and their habitat which just happens to be where the future oil deposits happen to be located.
We told you that you're making too much money and that we're looking at seizing any money that we consider windfall profits.
We have allowed you to drill in some very small areas in Alaska while simultaneously creating very generous environmental laws which have tied up the very production we authorize through years of litigation after you spent the money on buying and setting up equipment.
We told you through our policies that we would not allow you to build a new refinery in over 30 years.
In fact, this great country, under our tutelage, has even reduced the number of operational refineries by half since 1982.
We have even told your potential competitors in the nuclear and hydroelectric industries that we would send the environmental lawyers after them if they even dared think about building a new plant or a new dam.
We've refused to fund or allow the deployment of coal-to-oil technology which has been around since the 1930s.
We've told you that you have to make different blends of gasoline, let states like California dictate what unique gasoline blends you have to make for them.
We will not reduce our federal gasoline tax.
We won't even consider reducing it for the summer months.
So Mr. Big oil, tell me why exactly are gas prices so high?

Taxes

In a totally surprising move, Congress today showed that when W leaves they will raise our taxes enormously (/sarc).

Both the House and the Senate basically are telling the American people that no matter what you think of your current situation (or what the media tells you to think of it), just wait a little bit and it will get worse.

The Democrats promise to get the books back in the black while making each and every American pay more (the Senate wants some to pay more, and some not) while also raising unemployment and inflation. (ok I made the last part up, but if you take a slowing economy and jump taxes on it, guess what will happen) Of course these votes didn't actually mean anything, they were simply political in nature (which is actually the best kind of votes for us little people; the less that Congress of either stripe actually passes, the better).

The one bill that would have been great for the public probably won't pass however, the earmark one-year ban looks like it will die an agonizing death (hopefully they'll surprise me on that one). Why can't they simply take money from the people that keep bitching that taxes are too low? Do these people not realize that they can simply pay more? Maybe they should try that route.

Went out and played a round of golf today, first time in a couple years that I've been able to get out there. I won't put my score in here so I don't upset anyone (me), but it was fun and hopefully with me living in Decatur, I can do it more often. I need to light a fire under my co-bloggers to get more copy out here, but what can you do :)
Yahoo

tag: taxes, Congress, budget, , earmarks, politics, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Waterboarding

The Democrats in the House today failed to override the ban and handcuff our intelligence in the fight against terror. Of course, the republicans will not speak so much about the waterboarding component and will highlight the fact that this bill had more pork than a neighborhood 'Piggly Wiggly', which is good also. The wasteful spending should have been stopped when the R's had control of Congress and for that reason they no longer have it.

The democrats will (and do) claim that this is all about torture, ignoring the fact that waterboarding has been deemed legal by the AG and not torture under any laws in this country. Of course they had the opportunity once to make it illegal and chose not to, but that's why 20/20 is such a good thing (in hindsight that is).

There will be many (and some that even are respectable) that will argue about the effect of our using waterboarding on 'their' prisoners and what 'they' do to our prisoners. These enlightened people will conveniently ignore the fact of what the monsters already do to our people when they get them and will instead hyperventilate on what they imagine might happen to someone in custody of the jihadists.

I'm sure that U.S. and western people captured by Islamic terrorists would be happy to be waterboarded instead of the usual end-game that they use (rusty knife anyone). Congress hasn't done much right in the past few years and will disappoint me again soon I'm sure, but I am happy knowing (for now) that we have the ability to put another terrorist under the drip if needed.

Fox

tag: terrorists, waterboarding, Congress, , War on Terror, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Iraq Report

General Petraeus gave his assessment of Iraq today (confirmed by Senate 81-0 to lead the forces in Iraq) amid much scorn from Democrats. Truthfully, the Dems in Congress (and elsewhere) were the ones that wanted the September report so bad, they were short of votes to cut out of Iraq and felt the surge would do no good and only help them to get more converts to their side.

Lo and behold, the surge worked well enough that even the MSM decided to print some on it. Varoius Democratic leaders went to Iraq and reported on progress and no more votes to run were given. Of course, that was before the report.

In the weeks and days leading up to the report, Democrats and their 'base' have steadily been downplaying the report by calling Petraeus a 'bush-mouthpiece' and saying his report is lies and 'cooked' for the Whitehouse (yes he was confirmed 81-0, had to have been a few D's in that vote) before they even laid eyes on the report. With the news on the MSM and from the Democrats that took the time to visit the war zone, they knew they had to jump out in front of this thing.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republicans accused Democrats on Monday of embracing "character assassination" against Iraq war commander General David Petraeus, hours before his key testimony to the US Congress.

Pent-up political fury over the war spilled over before the appearance by Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees later Monday.

The flare-up was sparked by a full-page advertisement in The New York Times placed by anti-war liberal campaign group MoveOn.org, reading "General Petraeus or General Betray US? Cooking the Books for the White House."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said that the advertisement represented a "boorish, childish, unworthy attack.

Top Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said on NBC that he did not agree with the sentiments of the advertisement, but also disagreed with Petraeus's expected conclusion that the current troop surge in Iraq was working and should be extended.

"I really respect him, and I think he's dead, flat wrong," Biden said of Petraeus on NBC television.

"The truth of the matter is that ... this administration's policy and the surge are a failure."[link] {emp. mine-LN}

Notice the last quote from Biden, remember, this is BEFORE he heard the report. Do you honestly think he'll pay ANY attention to what the General says? The Democrats are convinced that they have a 'mandate' to stop the war, yet they are too cowardly to actually do so. There is an election coming up and they feel (rightly I think) that ending the conflict as a party would damage their chances in '08.

I realize that Republicans aren't saints (they have a lot that needs to be fixed in the party so conservatives like me can again feel comfortable with them) but they are the best bet we have to keeping this country safe and on track economically. Until or unless a Conservative party emerges, I will continue to support Republicans over Democrats for precisely these reasons.

(other news on the report here)

Democratic 'Redeployment'

With actual good news on the Iraqi war slipping through the MSM lockjaw, the Democrats in Congress are tabling legislation they think will allow Republicans to vote against the President but also against a surrenderretreatwithdrawal from MesepotamiaIraq:

Dems Want to Keep GOP From Votes on
Iraq
Email this Story

Jul 31, 9:12 PM (ET)

By DAVID ESPO


WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders are intent on
sidetracking bipartisan attempts to change course in Iraq at least until fall,
officials said Tuesday, rather than allow nervous Republicans to vote for
legislation that lacks a troop withdrawal deadline.
Several lawmakers and
aides said the goal was to deny members of the GOP rank and file a chance to
proclaim their independence from President Bush by voting for a limited measure
- after months of backing his policy in an increasingly unpopular war.
Polls
have long shown the war to be unpopular, and a survey released during the day by
the Democracy Corps, which advises Democrats, reported that 61 percent of those
polled want their lawmaker to begin requiring a reduction of troops. (link)

Legisltation by poll. It's a remarkable conceitconcept. Maybe one day we'll get some politcians that will legislate for the good of the people and not for the votes of the people (D or R). Maybe I'm being a little cynical, but you'd think that one day someone in Washington would stand up against poll-watching and get to actually doing their job.

We really need a true conservative party in this country. Something the Republicans used to know a little about.

Cut and Run (new and improved!)

Time for a new 'strategy' from the Democrats:

Murtha pushes new troop withdrawal plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A leading Democratic House Iraq war critic said Wednesday he'll soon push legislation that would order U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in two months and predicted Republicans will swing behind it this time.

I do love the optimism from Murtha on the support he'll garner this time around. This kind of optimistic impulse should usually be rewarded. Maybe a treat of some kind.

In response to Murtha's proposal, House Republican Leader John Boehner said Democrats were ignoring progress in Iraq.

"If they are not listening to reports from our generals today, how does anyone believe they will make an honest and objective decision in September?" Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "Our national security is not a political football, and Republicans aren't going to treat it as such."(link)

And deep into the article we get the money quote from the Republican side. If the Democrats are going to claim a failure before even listening to the reports, what makes us trust them? (nothing if their approval ratings are accurate ~ 14%)

Filed: Murtha, cut and run, Democrats, Congress, Blogpower, LordNazh, BlogPower, LordNazh

Censure

Feingold must be drunk on his party's successes in Congress:

Sen. Feingold proposes censuring Bush
1 hour, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Liberal Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

But Feingold's own party leader in the Senate showed little interest in the idea. An attempt in 2006 by Feingold to censure Bush over the warrantless spying program attracted only three co-sponsors.

Feingold, a prominent war critic, said he soon plans to offer two censure resolutions — measures that would amount to a formal condemnation of the Republican president. (link)

His last attempt wasn't too good and I wouldn't expect this one to garner much support either. But there is that 14% number to look at and many Democrats may try to use this to bolster their sinking 'mandate'.

With what the Democrats have (not) accomplished already, this bill fits right in with their agenda.

Filed: Feingold, censure, W, Democrat, Congress, Blogpower, LordNazh, BlogPower, LordNazh

House OK's Plan to Withdraw US Troops(retreat)
WASHINGTON - The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

"The security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging," the administration report concluded. The economic picture is uneven, it added, and the government has not yet enacted vital political reconciliation legislation.

As many as 80 suicide bombers per month cross into the country from Syria, said the interim assessment, which is to be followed by a fuller accounting in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in the region.(link)

What was it the little engine kept saying? "I think I can, I think I can." Sounds like the Democratic approach to the war and losing it.

Filed: Iraq, War on Terror, Cut and Run, Democrats, Congress, Blogpower, LordNazh, BlogPower, LordNazh

Dems vote for surrender next year

In a surprise move (/sarc) the new Democrat(ic) majority touted their new plan for surrender. Taking an Emergency spending bill and adding enough pork to buy votes of more reluctant members.

Democrats tout plan to bring troops home

1 hour, 19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Democrats' plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq next year responds to voters' demand for change, New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes (news, bio, voting record) said Saturday.

Hodes and other House Democrats on Friday pushed through a rebuke of President Bush and the war in Iraq. Bush promised a veto of the spending bill, which demands combat operations end before September 2008 — and perhaps earlier.

"With our vote this week, we're helping our troops, protecting our veterans, and fighting to end the waste, fraud and abuse," said Hodes, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address. "After four years of a failed policy, Democrats are insisting on a new direction in Iraq and a real plan that holds the Iraqi people accountable for their own country." (link) {emph. mine-LN}

I love the irony in a bill with 21 million in pork touting to end waste, fraud and abuse. The democrats have no spine, if they really want to respond to the voters' 'mandate' then they should pull funding now and end the war (a power they have); instead they think that might be a bad political move (how could they think that if they think the voters told them too?). Instead of focusing on non-binding resolutions and pork-filled funding resolutions, they should just do what the voters told them to.

Of course, the polls tell them what to do, every day. If the polls tell them to a non-binding resolution will be good, that's what they will do. If the polls said the war was a good thing, Pelosi would have a statement about the success of the surge. Hopefully before '08 these wind-blown politicians will be caught up in a tornado.
__________
Feckle thy name is Democrat

Filed: democrats, war, policy, LordNazh

Fillibusters

A lot of people have been covering the unique phenomena that is the MSM coverage of politics. The assumption by the press to say that a Republican fillibuster is a debate-killer and a Democrat(ic) one is a debate-enhancer.

With the 'stalemate' in the Senate raging on, Pelosi decides that if the Democrats in the Senate can't do their job correctly, the House will have to show them how:

House Schedules Vote on Iraq Resolution Feb 06 3:12 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled House will vote next week on a nonbinding measure opposing President Bush's decision to dispatch additional troops to Iraq, officials said Tuesday, hastening a postelection clash between Congress and commander in chief.

The precise nature of the measure remains to be determined, the officials said, although Brendan Daly, a spokeswoman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said, it will be "our opposition to the surge" in troops.

The Pentagon is in the midst of implementing Bush's order to raise troop levels by 21,500, part of a plan to help quell sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Bush's revised strategy has sparked strong opposition among Democrats, and officials said that Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., had both pledged to their rank-and-file that next week's vote would merely be the first attempt to pressure the president to shift course in the war. Other legislation will be binding, they said.

Under House rules, Democratic leaders have the authority to advance a measure to the floor for three days of debate and a vote.

That stands in contrast to the Senate, where Republicans have so far blocked an attempt by Democrats to hold a full-fledged debate on a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

House Democratic leaders charted their course as Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate committee that U.S. forces might be able to start leaving Iraq before the end of the year _ if daunting conditions including subdued violence and political reconciliation are met. (link)

Notice the bolded paragraph. The AP is actually claiming that the Republicans are thwarting debate by fillibust'ing the vote on a senate bill. Before the current congress was installed, any fillibuster by Democrats was called opening up debate (as it is truthfully), so what gives? I'll leave that question to you, if you don't know the answer, you probably don't like what I write anyway.
__________
Reason to go hmmm
Filed: Congress, Democrats, Senate, MSM, liberal, LordNazh