Brink

Characters who would like to chat publicly can do so in the restaurant's main dining area. General public admission is not allowed here, however any Washington politico or special interest lobbyist or what have you can enter here. Here is your menu.

You can order these from the private rooms as well if you wish. 

Transfer from the War Chest of Sen. Laura Corbyn.

Transfer 10:35 PM 12/18/2017

$656,640

Brink

Funds on hold due to FEC Inquiry

11:10 PM 12/18/17

Lloth

Partial release 12:30 PM 12/19/17

$389,270 hard(war chest)

$35,000 soft (PAC)

Lloth

25 minutes ago, Evan said:

Laura Corbyn transfers $6,566,640 from her Warchest (link) to the Republican Party, pursuant to Rule (4)(a)(3).

 

Transfer 10:07 PM 12/18/2017

$6,566,640

Lloth

VOIDED.

Announcement on the whole situation with the report expiration date for the No Food Stamps for Decedents Act.

After consolation with members of both parties and the Chief Administrator, I have decided to go ahead and let the players draft a bill to amend the No Food Stamps for Decedents Act accounting for the date. So what exactly do this mean, you ask?

1. White will still not be docked any for what I originally informed of being a way to fix it.

2. The Ag Department will assume that the report is due on September 1, 2001 until Congress says otherwise.

3. (A strictly OOC recommendation) Please check your dates when you pass bills from now on so we can avoid this from even happening.

When it comes to the motion to suspend and pass the No Food Stamps for Decedents Act deadline in the House Economic and Domestic Affairs committee, that was the way I recommended White handle it. So, please do not attack White for this saying that he doesn't understand the legislative process. In the past, problems like this have been handled with retconning, I am going to retcon these attacks against White as I assume they were made with people being unaware of me telling White this is how it could be handled.

EDITED: Clarified what bill we are talking about

Election grant program getting increased scrutiny in House of Representatives

Legislation to create an election grant program has made it to the House Floor. However, this legislation, which passed the House Economic and Domestic Committee in a 1-0 vote, is getting much more analysis on the floor then it did in committee.

The legislation, sponsored by former House Majority Leader Michael Conrad, would create a grant program in which the Attorney General would be allowed give money to states and local entities to improve the administration of elections. Examples of things which would be allowed under this are modernizing equipment or replacing of equipment, the hiring of more personnel, and upgrading procedures used to count votes. The bill does seem as if however that the Attorney General gets most of the power when it comes to approving grants and deciding how the application process would work.

The money in which the grant would provide cannot exceed 75% of the total cost of the improvement, according to the legislation. This program would have some oversight, requiring people who get this money to report to the Attorney General every six months on what is being funded using this grant. Also, the Attorney General would be required to submit a yearly report to the Congress on the grant program.

The money amount that this legislation gives to this program is $325 million for the first year. It appears that no money will be given in later years, so this $325 million appears to be a one time cost. The legislation also states that no more then 2% of the money ($6,500,000) may be used for administrative costs in carrying out the grant program. Also to note, 50% of the funds shall be used to fund state entities and the other 50% shall be used to fund local entities who may need the money.

It did have some Democratic support when it was first introduced, as former congressman Tyler Swanson co-sponsored the legislation.

The legislation, after passing committee, soon came to the House Floor. At that point Democrats, including House Minority Leader Andrew Sutherland raised issue with the costs of the bill.

"But this bill is just wanting to spend $325 million with no way of explaining how we are going to pay for it," Sutherland said. "A dollar here a dollar there and before you know it we have a deficit. This is just after we have debated not one but two different constitutional amendments offered by the majority to create 'fiscal responsibility'".

After Sutherland got little response on that part of the legislation, he called for the bill to be sent back to the Economic and Domestic Committee. He suggested that the committee needed to hear from the Department of Justice on how they would spend the money before he could support the legislation. Fellow Democrat Mark Anderson of Ohio seconded that push.

Right now, the motion is being voted on where currently, the only votes have been aye votes. In that case, it would be expected that the motion to recommit passes with little objection. If so, the election improvements may have to wait until the committee can get it to their floor.

Quissenberry remains judge in Diallo case as boss backs up his decision

Judge Erik Quissenberry remains the judge in the Amadou Diallo case as Amadou Diallo's mother is slated to testify over the phone tomorrow afternoon in court. 

Head Judge for the New York City District Court Ethel Klein announced her decision that she would back up her judge yesterday in a press conference.

"I see no substantial reason to take Judge Quissenberry off this case," Klein said. "While I do not believe that AIDS is transferable, many do. Judge Quissenberry is one of them. I see myself as having no right to take him off this case based off his belief. He is allowing her to testify at all, so I see no bias."

It should be noted that, according to recent polling, that 22% of Americans believe that AIDS can be transmitted by way of a shared drinking glass. 16% say that it can be shared by something as routine as a toilet seat.

While the ACLU continues on its "health discrimination" thought process, in recent days it seems they are slowly walking it back. It appears they are not as willing as they once were of getting into this medical fight. This may partially be due to the fact that there seems to be no way forward against this decision.

Meanwhile, the group "Act Up" is becoming a prominent force against Judge Quissenberry. Act Up is the short name of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. The group has a long history in New York, having demonstrated on Wall Street, at the Food and Drug Administration (or as they call it "the Federal Death Administration), and at St. Patrick's cathedral in New York Ciry.

Act Up is slated to protest outside of the New York City courthouse where judge Quissenberry will be hearing the Diallo case.

New York representative and newly-elected House Minority Whip Aaron Frost has been a voice against the judge in recent days speaking to the New York Times.

"The recent actions of Judge Quisenberry is dishonorable and is blatant health discrimination," Frost told the newspaper. "How can we trust this person to deliberate over the Diallo case, if he has already shown disdain towards having Diallo's mother who has aids from appearing in his court.  Quisenberry must step down from this case and he should go one step further to resign. There is no room for health discrimination under the rule of law."

New House Majority Leader Oscar Maddox took a more measured approach on the situation when he spoke to ABC 27 News in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

"I have serious concerns about Judge Quisenberry's decision regarding the testimony of Mrs. Diallou," Maddox said. "AIDS is not a disease that can be contracted from someone giving testimony in a courtroom, and the idea that allowing her to give testimony in person poses a health risk is completely false. While it's not my place to interfere in an ongoing judicial inquiry, I would strongly urge all our nation's judges to base their decisions in the courtroom on facts, not fears."

The distractions in the Diallo case appear to continue, and whether this specific distraction will continue, only time will tell.

Transfer from the War Chest of Sen. Rebecca Morris.

Transfer 7:03 PM 12/16/2017

$714,119

Lloth

Executive Orders being discussed in the House

A piece of legislation looking to create more transparency in executive orders is currently being considered and discussed in the House of Representatives.

The Executive Order Transparency Act, introduced by former Nebraska congressman Abraham Taft, looks to improve government transparency and promote the internet by having all White House executive orders be published on the web 72 hours before they are officially signed.

The former congressman is well-known for his arrest on child pornography and illegal weapons charges.

The legislation itself is simple enough, in fact the legislation passed the House Economic and Domestic Affairs committee in a 1-0 vote. Yesterday, it docketed to the House Floor by newly-elected House Majority Leader Oscar Maddox. 

Upon it's arrival on the House Floor, House Minority Leader Andrew Sutherland of Illinois motioned for unanimous consent.

However, Maddox found flaws in the legislation which he felt needed to be addressed. He proposed an amendment to the bill which would change the 72 hours before an order was signed to 24 hours after and allow an exemption for national security purposes.

Many within the federal government were pleased to here about Maddox's amendment, calling it much better then the original legislation.

"In our line of work, we may not have 72 hours to act," a source within the Defense Department said. "we may, for example, only have a few. If this legislation has passed in this fashion, it could have potentially created major headaches within Washington. Heck, it could have even caused major detriment to national security."

The amendment is now up for a vote, where it is well expected to pass. The bill itself is also non-controversial enough to probably pass the House in many political circles.

The following players are signed out for inactivity:
GrantK
Brewer

The follwing players are being warned for inactivity:
@Conrad

Diallo mother to testify over phone due to AIDS

The trial of the four police officers in the Amadou Diallo shooting took an interesting turn today when New York City judge Erik Quisenberry ruled that Amadou Diallo's mother would have to testify over the phone instead of in the courtroom.

The judge, in his ruling over it, cited precedent in his courtroom of requiring AIDS patients to testify over the phone. 

"I have been doing this well before this trial came about," judge Quisenberry said. "I am not going to change what I am doing now."

The American Civil Liberties Union has denounced the judge and called out this case of what they see as "health discrimination". The ACLU also reportedly offered to report the judge. However, Diallo's mother told them that she did not want the spotlight to be on her. 

"I would much rather the spotlight be on what happened to my son," she said. "What happened to me is secondary to the injustices by these four police officers against my son."

Diallo will testify over the phone this week.

December 21st - Election Day

Now until December 24th - Quarter Four 2000

December 22nd until December 24th - Lame Duck Congressional Session

December 25th - Game Holiday

December 26th until TBD - 2001

December 27th - Congress Convenes

December 29th - Inauguration Day

*Subject to change at discretion of Administrative Board

A subforum has been created for alternate history scenarios and discussions. It is located under the Ollie General Chat area.

Players are reminded that while they are allowed to take concerns to the AB, and that they are even allowed not to like the members of the AB. However, complete disrespect towards members of the AB WILL NOT be tolerated.

Earlier today, the user Shiggy said the comment: "See the bias, total injustice, unfairness, nonviolent rapists." in a response about admin bias.

Players are allowed to bring up concerns about the AB, what they ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO is insinuate that an administrator or player is a rapist in any kind, non-violent or violent. Recent times have taught us that a rapist is not something you can joke about, and it is not something that you can just throw willie nilly at people.

The AB also takes into consideration this player's malicious actions at VUSA and USGS which got him banned from those games. This is a new game, we are willing to give people second chances, however comments like that cannot and will not be tolerated in today's world or this political simulation.

Therefore, Shiggy is banned permanently in accordance with the terms of service and the policy telling players not to be dicks.

Quote

7. Don't be a dick. Do not bully players on or off the Virtual Government Simulator services. This includes our website and Telegram. 

Have a good night!

THIS is CNN Breaking News........

On behalf of @Tyler Swanson, he wanted me to announce that all election results will be announced on the 21st. This includes Presidential, Senate, and House election results. Therefore, the round two submission deadline will be moved to the 18th (Monday) at 11:59pm ET.

Energy compromise passes Senate

After a tumultuous time in the Senate that included a complete slowdown of relations between the parties, a compromise has been reached on the issue of energy. 

The 21st Century American Energy Independence Act has passed the United States Senate and will soon be on it's way to the House of Representatives for consideration. The legislation includes a plan being drafted for energy self-sufficiency by 2010, solar investment and production tax credits, wind energy investment and production tax credits, and more.

The legislation was introduced by former Michigan Senator Mitch Swinney. Being a somewhat democratic leaning piece of legislation, a compromise was needed for Republicans to agree to it. Senate Majority Leader Miriam Schultz and Senate Minority Leader Anderson Sherman were reported to be the two to come together and hammer out a deal.

"This is an important measure to transform our energy sector to a 21st-century economy. America will remain on the cutting edge of a growing and valuable industry while creating jobs," Senator Sherman said in a press release soon after the deal was made. "I am grateful and thankful to Republican leadership for accepting my request to find a way to make this legislation tenable to all parties. We cannot always find a way to work together, but today we got it done." 

The Senate Majority Leader also had polite remarks for the compromise in her press office.

"This is something many wouldn't have believed to be possible before today after the recent flaring of partisanship in the Senate but this is a worthy start of true positive change. I'm glad I was able to reach out to Senator Sherman and that Senator Sherman was comfortable enough to reach out to me despite the tenseness of the current political climate and hash out a good deal for America's energy sector," Schultz said.

The Times-Tribune has issued an analysis of the bill which can be found here.

John Alexander, a political commentator and former Communications Director to House Minority Leader Andrew Sutherland noted how this is a lot different in his eyes from what House Republicans are currently doing.

"What is interesting is it seems that we have seen almost an about face from the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans," Alexander said. "At a time when House Republicans are becoming more partisan, Senate Republicans have worked with Senator Sherman to achieve bipartisan energy reform that will heavily invest in alternative energies. Really, seems like a long term win for Senator Sherman who broke the Senate GOP of their partisanship. Now the onus is on Speaker White who needs to decide if his base is more important then achieving real reform."

The House will now consider the legislation, all indications currently expect it to pass there. If the bill passes the House, there is a good probability that it is the last legislation to be passed by both houses in this congressional session.

Bipartisan Summit ends without compromise; line-item veto amendment goes to final vote

After hopefulness that a compromise could be worked out, negotiations have apparently broken down on the line-item veto amendment currently being considered in the House of Representatives. 

According to a press release from House Minority Leader Andrew Sutherland, the Democrat leading the negotiation Speaker White is not interested in giving bipartisanship a chance.

“I support the amendment, many of my colleagues do not. I was happy to receive Speaker White’s letter to try and forge a bipartisan compromise to make a good amendment better,” Sutherland said. “But I’m saddened to think that White was using the negotiations as a stall tactic to give his party cover while his partisan game playing continued.”

Speaker White however, completely disagrees with that argument saying that according to the House Rules, time was up for debate on the legislation.

”While the Minority Leader sharpens his pitchforks and increases his rhetoric, I remain deeply committed to finding bipartisan solution to the problems the American people face, including reducing spending," Speaker White told the Des Moines Register. "The rules of the House are clear, debate times were set and extended, however, it became the opposition to this bill utilized it as an opportunity to perform a political stunt rather than towards reaching a solution, which has become clear by the increased rhetoric. I continue to invite all those to come together to find a solution.”

It should be noted that the debate extension for 48 hours passed by way of a 247-14-176 vote. The 176 abstentions are due to many members of the House and House Leadership not showing up to vote. Among those who did not show up include House Minority Leader Sutherland. Among the 14 who voted against it were Colorado's Benjamin Hernandez and Minnesota's David Carter. 

Brad Adams, the former Chief of Staff to Speaker White, mentioned that Democrats are just playing a political stunt with this whole situation.

“It has become very apparent the Democrats have used this as a stunt and ploy in an election cycle to gain talking points," Adams said. "It’s sad that the House Minority Leader continues to play these politically charged games at every turn, while offering no solutions. The talks broke down because the Democrats let time expire, to fuel their political games and increase their rhetoric.”

Representative Mark Anderson (D-OH), a member of the negotiations on the Democratic side, reached out to CBS News with his narrative of what happened. Apparently things started out really rocky.

"The negotiations started off really rocky, as when I pushed Representative Hooper and Speaker White about the side effects of the amendment they proceeded to dismiss my concerns and outright lied to me about the affects of it. Either that, or Representative Hooper didn't know what his own bill did," Anderson said.

According to Anderson, they found some compromise in addressing the problem the legislation looks to solve, but not any type of official policy which would achieve that goal.

"But once I caught them in the lie and called them both out, the Speaker made a point to apologize for Representative Hooper and shifted his tone to being much more respectfully," Anderson said. "Which I do appreciate. We found common agreement on the need to address porkbarrel projects and earmarks, and found that where we were having issues was in the need to determine if this amendment was the best solution going forward."

The Ohio Democrat expressed his concerns, and things were seemingly on the downhill until the Minority Leader introduced a proposal. 

"Thankfully, cooler heads than mine prevailed in talks and Mr. Sutherland offered an alternative," Anderson said. "That rather than allowing the President to make changes and Congress overturn them, the President's changes be approved by Congress. There is where the real issue cropped up. Rather than speak about it, neither Mr. Hooper nor the Speaker shared any opinion, and after several (days) of the proposal being out there the Speaker's stall tactics worked and he was able to force a vote."

Anderson believes that Republicans were not seeking a compromise themselves. He also said that Republicans were "trying to lobby for our votes with the bill as is and put on a premise of bipartisanship for the public gain." New York Daily News reporter and Daily Show contributor Anderson Scooper agrees with that assessment as well.

“The partisan Republican monolith led by Speaker White has proven time and again that it only agrees to talk to Democrats and fake bipartisanship after it’s created an arbitrary timeline in which they can cast aside any attempts and march forward," Scooper said. "We saw that. Talks fell apart, as the Democratic leadership has told us and no Republican has dared refute, because Jerome Hooper and Speaker White refuse to consider a proposed alternative and stalled until time ran out.”

Speaker White categorically denies Anderson's comments to this news outlet.

“Representative Anderson’s account of the talks played very differently than my recollection and further proves to me that this agenda pushed and started by the House Minority Leader was another tactic, political stunt in a long line of them. Representative Anderson and Mr. Sutherland came in fiery, after I calmed the situation and found common ground, Mr. Anderson concluded his main concern was that the threshold needed to be higher - I offered to amend it higher, to no avail or response," White said.

The Speaker was not afraid to point out the Minority Leader's cosponsorship of the legislation either. 

"When Mr. Sutherland came in with another attempt, as a co-sponsor of the bill, we all awaited a response from Mr. Anderson if the amendment would have calmed his concerns, again no response, no avail," White said. "Now, both individuals want to attack me for forcing a vote, when I have bound by the House rules to do so. I motioned to extend debate, the Democrats almost unanimously opposed. I reached out to find common ground, again no responses other than rhetoric. The simple fact of the matter is Mr. Sutherland is a co-sponsor of this legislation, in my opinion this is a cover-up for a fractured party."

When it comes to the line-item veto amendment itself, it has now moved into a final vote. As of the writing of this article, it is being said that the vote is currently at 300-100-16. It is crucial for Democrats to have no more defections on this legislation as they have lost the House Minority Leader's vote with him being a co-sponsor of the legislation. If the amendment can make the 2/3rds threshold nessecary in the House, it will move to the Senate where legislation has shown a tendency to languish.

The following players are being warned for inactivity:

@Rangerboy (Senator)

@GrantK

@Brewer

IKA's change of venue denied

The Imperial Klans of America, which has rose in prominence recently as a leading hate group in America, had their injunction take a downward note today.

The change of venue petition they filed to get their case moved to Alabama was declined today. Many believe that it has partially due to recent violence outside of the Democratic National Convention in Cincinnati.

This legal roadblock is expected to let the full implementation of the Hate Crime Prevention Modernization Act go into force immediately and have no potential hurdles in the future.

It should also be noted that recent protests in Cincinnati, as well as the status of this lawsuit have strengthened hate groups across the country. New York News Political Reporter and Daily Show Contributor Anderson Scooper agrees that white nationalist groups are gaining traction. 

"White supremacist groups, and others on the far right, are gaining a lot of notoriety right now, and they're clearly emboldened by their strength at both conventions. They didn't just wage war in the streets of Cincinnati, but their favored candidate who the Klan tried to give money to nearly had himself switch from VP nominee to Presidential nominee at the GOP convention,"

Scooper also noted that the white nationalist community has not been this strong in a while.

"We haven't seen this kind of activity from them [hate groups] since the Civil Rights eta. Minorities in this nation have to be terrified about this, because it's pretty obvious we haven't seen the last of far-right violence," Scooper said.

Former NY Times Writer and ABC News Political Reporter Kirk Roman, meanwhile, thinks that things such as the first possible African-American female Vice President is actually leading to the weakening of these hate groups, not the strengthening.

"I think we are seeing the destruction of hate groups in the United States, as they are fighting harder to stay relevant in a time where more and more women and minorities are becoming empowered. We now have our first African-American, Women, Jewish, Vice President nominee, and that must spread fear through their hearts," Roman said.

Even with the lawsuit being over, it seems clear that the IKA and other white nationalist groups, such as the Aryan Alliance are not going to stay quiet in the 21st Century America.

The first presidential debate is kicking off with opening statements right now.

To join us, please go here: https://t.me/joinchat/GWiSXBL910XtyYrLJWmoaw

EDIT: To join a purely OOC discussion of it, please join us here: https://t.me/joinchat/BiwDVwznabF1JcgJu6-Fdg

Speaker White pens open letter to Sutherland

A open letter, penned by House Speaker John White, is making the rounds around Washington today. 

The letter seemingly was drawn up right after the election of new House Majority Leader Andrew Sutherland as it is addressed to him and congratulates him on his ascension to the position. 

As partisanship has seemingly reared it's head in Washington recently, it is very interesting the timing of this letter. Also interesting about it's timing is the recent compromise in the Senate on the 21st Century energy legislation.

In the letter, White expresses his hope to form a future partnership with Sutherland, and calls for the two to come together to find common ground on the issues.

"While we may not always see eye-to-eye on every issue, it is important that we find common ground and come together to solve issues that our country faces and leave our country better than we found for future generations to come," White penned. "It appears that the Line Item Veto Amendment would be the time the perfect opportunity to open this dialogue, coupled with your recent election."

Sutherland would reply to the open letter with the same cordialness as White had in his letter. Sutherland mentioned how it was nice to receive the letter, however he also strengthened that many members inside his caucus have problems with the line-item veto amendment. 

"While my door is always open to meeting with any member of Congress, my caucus has very serious concerns about the proposed amendment as I am sure you can see from the motion to table. I am more than willing to sit down with anyone and hear them out. Personally, as a co-sponsor I agree with the amendment," Sutherland told White.

Sutherland also suggested that Congressman Mark Anderson of Ohio attend this meeting. Rumors also have it that on the Republican side, the sponsor of the legislation, Jerome Hooper is going to be in this meeting as well.

Whether this bipartisan summit goes anywhere remains to be seen, however in times of recent harsh partisanship in Washngton, this shows that things have started to take a much more cordial tone.

Another constitutional amendment being debated on House Floor

A new constitutional amendment is being debated on the House Floor, and it seemingly has better prospects of passing then the last one.

The Line-Item Veto Amendment, introduced by Colorado senatorial candidate Jerome Hooper, would grant the President the authority to reduce or disapprove of any specific appropriation in a piece of legislation. The thing about this is that the rest of the bill would still go into law. 

Also another difference between this "line-item veto" and a regular veto would be that the line-item veto would be able to be overturned by a simple majority in both the House and Senate.

"Almost every single state, including Colorado, allows its governor line-item veto power. This keeps wasteful pork barrel spending in check at the local level. President Clinton requested that Congress give him the authority to have a line-item veto, and Congress agreed only for the Supreme Court to decide that it would require a Constitutional amendment," Hooper said in a press release when he introduced the legislation. "Well, now I am here introducing this amendment - which already has bipartisan support." 

The bipartisan support refers to newly-elected House Minority Leader Andrew Sutherland's support. Sutherland has been raising a profile for himself as a well-known blue dog Democrat. 

Sutherland was also instrumental in the legislation passing the House Economic and Domestic Affairs Committee in a 3-1 vote. The opposing vote in committee was Oregon's Lisette Edigia Tran. 

"We just dilberated legislation with similar intent in the house and tabled it. Let us not waste more taxpayer money discussing an idea that has already failed the house," Tran said.

It should be noted that while the intent in the top of the legislation is the same, that the legislation itself is entirely different from the previously introduced, and failed Balanced Budget Amendment.

The legislation has since been docketed onto the House Floor, where the same Democratic attack that Tran started immediately continued with Congressman Johnathan Castillo of New York.

"We should not waste time with this legislation. As I echo what was said in committee by a colleague of mine. We tabled a similar bill and we should not waste time with this one as well," Castillo said. 

The motion to table was soon seconded by Ohio's Mark Anderson citing that it is "dangerous, problematic, and radically changes a component of our democracy without actually fixing anything that's affecting us". The motion to table would end up failing 116-227-91. After the motion to table started being voted on, Sutherland started to question on the House Floor whether the Speaker actually had the votes to pass the bill.

Meanwhile, Speaker John White temporarily relinquished the gavel and stepped down to the floor to express his opinion on the debate going on.

"The very charge that this is being rushed through is a stunt by the Minority in this chamber to gain talking points in the future... While the Minority in this chamber wants to paint me as some villain, who sits in my evil lair thinking of my next evil deed, it is a smoke and mirrors from the truth. The Minority in this chamber has opposed common sense legislation in the interest of simply just saying no," White said. 

In that speech he also made a motion to extend debate on the legislation by 48 hours as a sign of good faith towards Democrats on discussing the legislation. Apparently his technique worked in some form as two Democrats would soon come to the floor and announce their support for the constitutional amendment. Those are Montana's Matthew Baldwin, and Nevada's H.E. Pennypacker.

It appears that White stressed the simple majority override section the most, as both congressmen made that explicit parts of their arguments.

There is also some speculation that both Republicans and Democrats are both interested in this bill due to the Presidential elections, as their candidates would get this line-item veto power if the constitutional amendment could make it through the hurdles needed to pass it.

The vote on the motion to extend debate is currently very close and is expected to be counted soon. Right now, it looks like that vote will be the biggest factor on where the bill goes from here. Interestingly enough to note, only two members of House leadership voted, those being the ranking member of the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committee Benjamin Hernandez and GOP presidential nominee Charles Fong.

Just now, Ben said:

 

I call BS, Gods are not born nor do they die, they simply are.

Haha, ironically enough the birthday festivities have wrapped up, and I am back now.

Heard this playing today, and got it kind of stuck in my head. Good song though.

Today is my birthday, so I will be in and out. If you need me, I will still be replying to messages. However, there maybe a delay in my replies.