Avner

Vote on Protection from Dangerous Animals Act continues, several members of Congress into bestiality

"I love you too Bobo" Shocking photos of Congressman Bill Malcolmson with his animal lover

 

Recently Congressman Bill Malcolmson presented the Protection from Dangerous Animals Act, the bill would grant the president the ability to appoint a commission to recommend new guidelines to allow more hunting permits for bears, wolves, and other animals “deemed dangerous.” While many have questioned why the congressman has presented this piece of legislation out of all the current issues, here at the National Enquirer have discovered that Congressman Malcolmson indulges in bestiality, instead of hunting “dangerous animals”, the congressman performs certain acts upon these animals for his own entertainment. Talking to NYU Professor Chaim Jacob-Schmitz he told us that bestiality is not uncommon for those in positions of power and with the amount of congress members voting for the piece of legislation, Dr. Jacob-Schmitz’s theory prove correct.

 

The Rev Billy Graham 2.0 Returns to the House Floor

Onwards Congressional Soldier! Marching onto the White House!

 

Once again Congressman John Conroy has returned to the house floor to give another incoherent rant, we at the National Enquirer conclude that  the congressman may either suffer from Jerusalem syndrome or may believe he is the reincarnation of the still breathing Billy Graham. In his recent rant the congressman talked about the mocking of Christianity (A charge we inherently deny) while going further into an unorganized speech about the porn industry, abortion, President Clinton, the Moral Majority, and Jerry Falwell. Congressman Conroy has been well known for his infamous rants on the house floor, none making any sense however providing ample entertainment qualities. We can only describe Congressman Conroy as a holy crusader for insanity, fighting the good fight against his arch nemesis, the president. We can only ask the congressman when will his next revival be?  

AFL–CIO comes out in support of the Poverty Reduction & Economic Empowerment Act

 

AIPAC and  Zionist Organization of America expresses support for the Jerusalem Embassy Recognition Resolution, New Israel Fund harshly rebukes it and states Charles Fong is endangering a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.

 

Children's Defense Fund has come out supporting the Children's Healthcare Coverage Act

 

War of the Ladies: Morris & Gates Battle it Out

Battling each other for Missouri's senate seat, the race has quickly turned bitter

 

Jefferson City, Missouri:   Throughout the current midterms no senate race can compete with the outmost cutthroat tactics as Elizabeth Gates and Rebecca Morris have done in their quest to attempt and win the senate seat for Missouri. The campaign has been vicious even more so the debate hosted by up and coming newspaper, The Times-Tribune. The debate hosted at the Washington University in St. Louis showed the utter contempt both women have for each other, not less their total opposition to their differing views. The first barbs of attacks came from Congresswoman Rebecca Morris who came out swinging and critiqued Congresswoman Gates on her apparent weak condemnation of President Clinton’s behavior and the issue of him committing perjury, Morris claimed, “Well, I think we've just seen a clear-cut case of a Democratic politician - because that is what Mrs. Gates is - trying to cover for the boss.” Further attacking Gates for not even showing up to the censure debate to raise objections or even vote against on committee. Gates responded with what has now become her key focus, “The people of Missouri want jobs. They want a quality and affordable education. They want tax cuts.” While making it clear she was the candidate of action while Morris was not.

 

The attack barbs continued with Congresswoman Morris attacking Gates for her Kyoto Accords vote and attacked her for presenting pro-energy legislation according to Morris only a few hours before the debate. Gates replied in kind explaining her pieces of environment legislation while standing by her vote on Kyoto for as she claimed, the future generations of America.

 

Even on trade where it seemed that both agreed about the issue, the negative effects and the loss of jobs incurred by NAFTA with even Congresswoman Gates rebuking the president over the agreement, the war of words was launched even with this debate issue. Morris exclaimed that Gates attacked for her for supporting those trade deals and even went as far to call it libelous. Gates responded by relating it back to herself claiming that Morris claims where false and that she was the only one on the stage fighting for the working man and to raise the minimum wage, which again caused another heated moment between the two.

 

Algeria also became important not just for the debate but afterwards, former Secretary of State James Baker made his criticism known on Congresswoman Morris’s “globalist agenda” and her apathy on intervention in Algeria. Baker apparently stated that the comments, “were not only disingenuous but failed to see the various accomplishments of the so called “globalist agenda” had done for not only the United States but the international community.”

 

With Gates, her comments surrounding the president concerning NAFTA incurred the wrath of several top officials in the Clinton administration, claiming her criticism could have been less harsh towards the president.

 

However both obtained praise from their respective groups, Vice President Al Gore reportedly praised Gates for standing by her support not to abandon the Kyoto Accords while John J. Sweeney, President of the A.F.L.-C.I.O commended Congresswoman Morris for her strong refusal to allow China into the WTO while also commending Congresswoman Gates for her condemnation of NAFTA.

 

Overall the debate and the resulting campaign material released by both campaigns have made the overall campaign bitter and toxic according to Alexander Paulson a resident of St. Louis. A sixth grade teacher, Paulson stated that he believes both candidates have increased a level of tension unneeded in a campaign that should have based on the issues. In particular some saw Congresswoman Morris’s press release concerning her higher approval ratings than Gates as “childish.” Neither did Susan Kennel a long time Missouri resident find Gates repeatedly calling Morris as “desperate” at all endearing to the overall Gates campaign.

 

Nevertheless while the Times-Tribune and even the Morris campaign has claimed a Morris victory in the debate various political pundits have called it a close tie. The trading of constant attacks by both women made it difficult for political pundits like New York Times political commentator Orisis Storm to declare a clear winner, writing in his column the next morning; Storm concluded with the following, “Both women were presented logically arguments and refined statements of what they want to do, however Morris seemed too much on the offensive and Gates on the defensive, which later became a grumbling match of insults and calls of libel being thrown. However there cannot be called a clear winner within this debate but two women tied in both debate and in state polling in this midterm race.”

 

 

Making the case for Algeria, Fong harshly rebukes President

The House Majority Whip has been on a mission to bring attention on the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria attacks

 

I'm Bernard Shaw and welcome to the CNN Daybreak, I'm here with House Majority Whip Congressman Charles Fong. Congressman welcome

 

Fong

Thank you for having me

 

Shaw

Congressman Fong while this has gotten limited press coverage, why do you believe that the United States should act in Algeria?

 

Fong

The post-Soviet world we live in is an unknown place to virtually everyone. A transitional period for the world has begun as the United States has emerged as the sole superpower around the globe and groups like the United Nations have expanded their influence. We have seen the greatness of the international community in the form of global pressure that played a role in ending apartheid in South Africa. We have also seen the shortcomings of the international community in these short span of years with the cases of the Rwandan Genocide and the genocide that took place in Kosovo. Thousands continue to be killed senselessly in Algeria and the relative lack of action by the international community leaves me extremely worried about the possibility of Algeria becoming another Rwanda and Kosovo. I believe that the United States has the capacity to actively pursue an end to this conflict and I have been proud to be a leader in this effort since my floor speech on the matter some time ago. Now is not the time to go gentle into that good night. It's too easy to simply remain content as the conflict rages on an entirely separate continent. Now is the time to rage. We need to reject complacency as the decision to embrace complacency in the past has left only destruction and death in its wake.

 

Shaw

But you most certainly should realize the risk involved in deploying troops to Algeria, a Muslim majority country. Do you not fear that another Somalia situation could snowball into Algeria if the United States took direct action?

 

Fong

We know that the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria in particular has direct ties to terror groups like Al-Qaeda. This group in particular has committed a widespread campaign of indiscriminate killings of innocents. Hundreds of Muslims in Algeria were killed during Ramadan alone. The Algerian people are crying out for an end to the conflict and their cries have mostly fallen on deaf ears. The United States has the capacity to end this conflict as does the international community. If it takes the United States pressuring the international community to step up and stand up for the values it upholds like human rights and the dignity of man, then we must take those actions. I've proposed an AUMF to target the GIA specifically within Algeria but direct military intervention does not have to be the only answer. If my AUMF pressures this administration and the international community to take this issue seriously, then I would call it a success. Dismantling the GIA and ending the senseless killings must be a goal of this country and the rest of the international community. The lack of action on the issue is simply shameful of the international community and the U.S., as the undisputed leader, has the ability to make this issue heard loud and clear. I don't

 

Shaw

And there have been reports that President Clinton has declined to even consider moving forward on taking military action. Do you think this is due to the current censure debate ongoing in Congress or a general lack of will by the president?

 

Fong:

I'd put it towards lack of will. I obviously have my differences with President Clinton on a multitude of issues but the President has consistently chosen to embrace complacency as his foreign policy. We chose complacency when we watched hundreds of thousands of Rwandans killed in a genocide that will always be a dark spot in modern history. President Clinton will use any excuse possible to justify not acting on the issue but the fact that he won't even direct UN Ambassador Richardson to even attempt to draft a resolution within the General Assembly or direct Secretary Albright to work with our European Union allies and allies in Africa towards mediating the conflict is striking. President Clinton is choosing to embrace complacency once again and I truly fear for the Algerian people of the greatest republic on the face of the earth are unwilling to hear their cries due to a lack of moral will and politicization.

 

Shaw

In fairness the president did act in Somalia, and Operation Deliberate Force in 1995 in Bosnia, his show of force in Haiti in 1994, Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and the list goes on. Can you really say that the president has been complacent on his foreign policy? Not to mention it seems the lack of will that your own party has taken up the cause of the tragic massacre in Algeria.

 

Fong

The president seems more than willing to intervene when it's convenient for him or politically popular to do so. I get that we have a midterm year where Republicans are expected to do relatively well and a necessary intervention may not appeal to his base. I do believe that there is political motivation behind his unwillingness to act and it comes directly from the fact that he simply doesn't want to agitate a base that has already been put off by the Lewinsky scandal. Scholars will look back on Algeria just as they will with Rwanda and see a President who had the ability to act and move countries towards seeking a mediation to the conflict, but when the country and the people needed him most, he shirked away from his duties as the leader of the free world. I challenge President Clinton to justify why he believes intervention was right in the cases of Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti, but not Rwanda and Algeria. The President seems to be selective in when he wants to defend our values and the values of free men abroad as he sways in the winds of the political climate. In all of the cases you mentioned, the President had multiple other nations backing his military actions. The President remains unwilling to act in any capacity. He simply chooses not to take the initiative and waits on the sidelines for others to take the plunge. The Algerian people can't afford for the President to sit on the sidelines of this crisis. They need someone who will lead by example.

As for my own party, I have always been proud to be a member of a big tent party like the GOP. One where ideas across the spectrum are respected. I recognize that there are those within my party that are hesitant to act just as there are likely those that share my views within the Democratic Party but are being silenced by their leadership and the administration.

 

Shaw

So you believe that Democratic politicians are being silenced? In a statement former Congressman Mitchell Carper stated the following,

" I don't think there's anyone in Congress who wants to continue seeing this bloodshed in Algeria, but the warmongers in the House who are pushing this AUMF have yet to provide a compelling national interest that justifies American intervention. It appears there's a bout of amnesia going around when it comes to the consequences of military adventurism."

Do you think this is due to Democrats tightening the leash as you claim or does former Congressman Carper's criticisms around a "compelling national interest" hold merit?

 

Fong:

I can't speak for former Congressman Carper specifically as his views are his own but the fact that he supported the same resolution I did calling for the President to engage diplomatically with the Algerian government and his allies is telling of the discontent among even Democrats regarding the complete silence from the Clinton Administration. There is a clear consensus in Congress as the resolution in question passed without any opposition that the Clinton Administration should engage with our allies and the Algerian government in a more proactive strategy to mediate an end to the conflict. His unwillingness to do so shows a clear disconnect between the administration and his own party, along with the rest of Congress. I would make the claim that former Congressman Carper may have been less inclined to embrace tangible action after seeing how inept the administration was being on this issue. I sincerely hope that President Clinton has a genuine reason for a lack of any action on the matter. It would be simply shameful and degrading to the office of the presidency if the President's position on this matter was due to his issues with the Republican Congress.

 

Shaw

But the question remains, what action would the president take? Should NATO get involved? Offer of military technical support for the Algerian government? What would be your recommendation if the president decided to invite you other to the white house to discuss the issue?

 

Fong

Providing military technical support is simply a given as we need to make sure that the Algerian government can keep the peace once the conflict is over. I believe there is an avenue in which NATO should be involved and that avenue is dismantling the GIA. The GIA has indiscriminately killed thousands in Algeria but has also committed terror attacks in France with the most notable example being the attacks in Paris back in 1995 where 10 innocent people were killed and over 200 were injured. Another clear case would be the hijacking of Air France Flight 8969 in 1994 where we now know the goal was to blow the plane up over Paris. The GIA has proven itself to be a threat to our fellow NATO ally and action must be taken. The GIA has the backing of Al-Qaeda which attempted to take the life of President Clinton in Manila during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum back in 1996 and played a role in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1991. There is a clear need to squash Al-Qaeda's influence in Algeria and that comes when we dismantle the GIA. The President must also seek to engage with the UN and our allies like the EU to mediate this conflict. I am optimistic of the resolution calling for the President to act to pass swiftly in the Senate. Congress is united behind the idea that action of some kind must be taken. The Clinton Administration cannot be silent any longer and with this resolution in particular along with my AUMF, we will force him to act.

 

Shaw

So you believe that we should in fact use military force to deal with the GIA? Congressman, I guess my next question is to try and make sense of this; GIA is backed by Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's primary goal is to push out American influence out of Muslim majority countries; wouldn't direct military action strengthen their cause?

 

Fong

Direct military action will curb Al-Qaeda's influence within the country; there is no doubt about that. The fact remains that the people of Algeria want international action. They want the conflict to end and we can deliver on that. Action is needed now more than ever to end the indiscriminate killings of Algerian citizens by a radical organization that the people of Algeria despise with a passion as this campaign they have waged has turned public opinion against them. We wouldn't be fighting some group of pariahs that are immortalized and venerated by the general populace. We would be combating a violent terror organization that has lost any semblance of support from the populace over their mass murder campaign.

 

Shaw

But the issue at hand is whether that military action may strengthen the appeal of radicals within Algeria. Just having military bases in Saudi Arabia was able to radicalize Osama bin Laden, don't you think that's a legitimate concern?

 

Fong

We have witnessed the deaths of thousands of Algerians at the hands of the GIA for no other reason besides malice and cruelty. They claim to conduct these actions as some form of jihad but it's clear to us just as it is to the people that the GIA is simply using religion as an excuse to kill indiscriminately. As I said before and will say again, the GIA is neither beloved nor venerated by the people of Algeria. The GIA is no Mujahideen and Antar Zouabri is no Osama Bin Laden. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by military bases radicalizing Osama Bin Laden. I don't profess to be an expert but it was the actions of Bin Laden within the Mujahideen during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan that led to the veneration we see from many to this day in Saudi Arabia and in radical spheres and he was radicalized far before the Gulf War and US action there. Antar Zouabri is not seen as a hero by any means among the Algerian people just like his predecessors. The GIA's unpopularity and continued willingness to kill innocents will not lead to a bolstered radicalized movement and to claim as such simply ignores the current situation on the ground.

 

Shaw

Radicalization against the United States, yes it was due to the military presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia. It is the very reason why he was forced to flee to Sudan. I am not talking about the general population Congressman, you can't simply claim the group is highly unpopular and that equates to wide support for American fire power. Radicalization will occur either way, the question is if that happens what will you do and what will the administration do if hypothetically the AUMF is passed and signed and America uses military force to stop GIA?

 

Fong

As I have said repeatedly, the GIA is unpopular in Algeria and the people of Algeria want the international community to act. The international community has justifiable means to involve itself in combating the GIA and should do so. Effectively supporting the Algerian government through technical military support and establishing a plan that prepares the Algerian military to take over security roles after the AUMF I have proposed expires is but one way we can seek to maintain order in the country. There is no denying however that the GIA must be dismantled and must be done effectively. They have already committed terror attacks against our NATO ally of France and continue to stomp over human rights. If diplomacy against the GIA was a viable option we could explore it but the United States will not negotiate with a terror organization. Military action is the only way to insure its defeat and end the deliberate mass murder campaign they have been waging.

 

Shaw

Congressman that doesn't answer my question at all, however moving on, former secretary of state James Baker praised your speech concerning intervention in Algeria. While it is early to even ask this, do you think you'd run even for president? Or do you think any future presidential candidate needs to promote a pro-human rights intervention policy as you've laid out, or in other words repair the damage as you call it under the Clinton administration?

 

Fong

I believe I did answer your question. Ensuring that the Algerian military has the means to maintain the peace brought about by the end of the conflict and the dismantling of the GIA when our forces pull out will prevent a force of the same size and scope from rising and expanding. Radicalization has spread in Afghanistan because the government embraces it. Radicalization has spread in Somalia because the government of Somalia is ineffective in combating it. We prevent radicalization when we seek an open dialogue with the Algerian Government and give them the tools needed to beat back the remnants of groups like the GIA that will no doubt still exist. Radicalization is extremely potent when there is official groups in which individuals can drift to and actively support just as they are potent when these groups have charismatic leaders like Osama Bin Laden. The factor going for us in Algeria is that Antar Zouabri is no Bin Laden. I'll rephrase when I say that radicalization won't happen at all, as one cannot deal in absolutes about these topics, but there are limiting factors that prevent the situation from reaching the scale it has in say Afghanistan. We need to be ready to recognize that fact that we can destroy the group but the ideas will persist and insuring Algeria has a strong national government is a good first step in that direction.

While I'll leave things like presidential ambitions up to media speculation as my focus is in the House and I appreciate Mr. Baker's kind words, I do believe a future candidate for the Presidency must be willing to recognize that the United States must be a leader on the world stage. The United States must be proactive in advocating the values of republicanism and democracy. The United States must continue to stand as a beacon of hope for millions around the world who continue to suffer, whether it be famine, disease, oppression, or conflict as it did throughout the Cold War. I believe in the idea that America must be a shining city on a hill. Any candidate vying for the highest office in the land must recognize our place in the world and seek to do what is in our power to make it a better one for the next generation.

 

Shaw

One last question before we go Congressman, what are your thoughts on the censure debate currently ongoing on the house floor? Do you think the intent was correct? Do you believe this takes away time from important matters or is ensuring the censure a justifiably act concerning the president's actions?

 

Fong

As a co-sponsor of the censure, I believe it is extremely necessary as it is clear President Clinton acted unlawfully. The Congress must hold the Executive Branch accountable and this censure seeks to do just that. Action must be taken to ensure that the integrity of the Oval Office and of this government is maintained. We cannot simply let this issue slide as we set a dangerous precedent when we do so.

Shaw

Well it's been a interesting conversation, Congressman Fong thank you for joining us today.

 

Fong

Thank you for having me

Irrate Texas Congressman Filled With the Holy Ghost on House Floor

President Clinton emitting the devil's horns according to our sources 

 

According to our sources, Texas Congressman John Conroy who is well known for his rants on the house floor is reportedly having delusions of Jesus Christ during his speeches. In his speeches he constantly talks about the evils of President Bill Clinton, going so far in his recent speech about the current censure debate by calling the president, “a pervert.” According to psychologist Dr. Peter Dortenhorst, Congressman Conroy suffers from delusions and he may even have delusions of himself as Christ. Further examination of his speech, one could argue that congressman was filled with the Holy Ghost,

 

“So many parents including me are sick and tired of the acceptance for sin in Washington. I say to them that this is really mild but really important and if the Democrats don't sign on to this legislation they should just say that they embrace sin.”

 

If the Congressman is the holy ghost, we at the National Enquirer can only hope that Congressman Conroy presents himself as the father and the son and we further hope we can turn water into wine on the house floor for the benefit of the various uptight congress members that walk the halls.

 

Here at the National Enquirer we will continue to pray for the congressman’s recovery, because deus vult!

I have semi-returned and I'd like to apologize to everyone. I currently have walking pneumonia  and while doing well with antibiotics, I've noticed I get tired very easily. I'll do my best to play catch up but I'll hopefully get caught up to speed tonight. 

I'll be on and off up until friday, this week will be very busy. I'll try to write up articles etc for you guys and post them when I can find the  time this week

Bernard Shaw, CNN

 

Mr. Speaker can you explain why both house committees have seen total inaction and why the Democrats continue to control the foreign affairs committee?

13 hours ago, John White said:

Can each committee get a hopper and archive forum? That way I can move the legislation into the committee hopper as it comes in.

 

Thanks!

Good to go

13 hours ago, Tyler Swanson said:

 

Bump

I found problem as to why you didn't have mods, you're good to go.

9 hours ago, KimJongUn said:

Is it allowed to be third party such as communist in congress of unite state?

 

No, since we're a realistic congressional simulation there can't be communist members of congress.

I have decided upon reflection of how our player media are doing, to scrap the five articles for grading rule. I will admit I was too ambitious with that rule. So going forward, player media will be graded with what they have posted already. Grading will occur this friday.

Criticism mounts as Democrats take control over Congressional Committees

 

 

Washington, D.C: Since the start of Congress, the chambers holding the house committees have remained silent with no bills being docketed nor even committee membership announced by the Republicans. However Democrats have silently started the process of opening both committees, Congressman Keith Flash and Congresswoman Elizabeth Gates have both taken control of their respecting committees, the ability coming from the house rules. This move has now grown into an embarrassment for the Republican Party especially from conservative pundits. Ari Goodman from Fox News lambasted Republican leadership for their ineffective governance while being the majority power.

 

“Where are our leaders in Congress? What the hell are they doing? Running for senate? Destroying our ties to businesses with their leftist lobby bill they docketed? What the hell is going on with the party of Reagan? It’s now time for the Republican congress members that still have the courage to gut those lazy self-serving leaders out of their positions.”

 

While columnist for the New York Times, Diane Cantor stated the lack of even naming a chair person for either committee showed that the Republicans had little care for governance.

 

“Honestly it is an embarrassment for the Republicans and quite honestly there is no excuse for the inaction. Most of their leaders are highly active and if the Democrats could have named ranking members and members for committee, why has the Republicans refused to do so after all of this time?”

 

While polling has yet to be taken, growing concern has mounted especially since the Democratic takeover of congressional committees. In a letter to the editor in the Washington Post, the concern of a lack of Republican attention could be summed up in the title, “These chambers to be sold in consequence of the late occupant’s declining business".

Former Secretary of State James Baker comments on Charles Fong Speech:

 

Quote

"The only Republican member of congress to make a speech on the atrocity that occurred in Algeria and even more so his speech represents an America that Americans can be proud of. The call of intervention to prevent crimes against humanity.  This speech resembles something that a strong Republican contender and hopefully future president makes." 

 

 

Richmond, Virginia: Jerry Falwell, the controversial televangelist has called on congress members in particular republicans and conservative democrats to support the Federal Marriage Amendment introduced by Congresswoman Augustine Delacourt (I-MO). The legislation would define marriage between a man and a woman which would then be enshrined within the constitution. The legislation has seen various members of congress supporting the marriage amendment from both sides of the aisle. The only case of “opposition” could have been when DNC chair Tyler Swanson tried to table the bill arguing that the issue should be left to the states. House Minority Leader Louis Wilder also announced he would not vote for the bill, arguing on the floor,

 

“I do not intend to vote for an utterly pointless amendment, that will have 0 effect on the day to day lives of Americans, and not only that, but that is the federal government trampling all over a 10th amendment issue that simply agrees with something that the people of each of the 50 states have already done.”

 

RNC chair Anabeth Perez’s office released a press release announcing that the congresswoman would be voting for the measure while the RNC attacked the Democrats for apparently “Not listening to the voice of the people.” While pointing the Democratic support for pass legislation that concerned marriage issues and President Clinton’s signing of several of these pieces of legislation. However the debate has left the halls of congress to the tv screen of Jerry Falwell’s program.

 

In his latest tv program, the southern Baptist pastor called on congress members to vote for the amendment. Stating that marriage was not only between a man and a woman but sacred between a man and a woman. In his radio show when confronted with a homosexual caller, Falwall reportedly harshly rebuked him stating that the amendment would “Protect America from the vile satanic homosexuals who want a life style that spreads AIDS to be protected by the government.”

 

While some have condemned Falwell for his recent comments, his anti-gay politics is well established among the evangelical community. He was one of the strongest supporters of Anita Bryant’s Save the Children campaign in 1977 which attempted to remove Florida’s ordinance which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. However Falwell has not just stuck to making comments in urging congress members to vote for the amendment, insiders have stated that Falwell has begun organizing a march on Washington in support of “Godly, Christian Marriage in America.” While the date has yet to be set, it is expected to be an attempt to pressure the remaining congress members that have to vote. House Majority Whip Charles Fong and his fellow party member Congressman Simon Reid have both voted no to the legislation.

The National Federation of Independent Business  has come out in opposition to the The American Wage Growth Act of 1998 currently in the congressional hopper. While they support the tax credits and see them beneficial to small businesses, they are opposed to raising the  minimum wage to  $5.90. 

 

Washington, D.C: President of the CoC, Tom Donohue expressed apparent “anger” at the apparent decision of Congress to pass the Restricting Lobbying Act by a wide coalition of Republicans and Democrats voting for the legislation. According to WNC, a high ranking member of the CoC attacked the legislation presented by Washington Democratic congressman Mitchell Carper as an act “attacking freedom of speech.” However there has been wide spread support for the bill from both sides in Congress, House Majority Leader and senate candidate, Rebecca Morris called the effort; "This is a great opportunity to cross the partisan aisle," "and get a legislative priority accomplished for the American people.”

 

However when it came to the final vote Congresswoman Morris did cast her vote while Deputy Speaker John White stayed mum on the bill. The two Republican congressmen that voted against the lobbying bill where Congressmen Simon Reid & Douglas Harper. Harper being the only Republican to show up to the debate in opposition to the bill, argued while he understood the intentions of the bill, nevertheless supported and believed in “The free market, Mr. Speaker. And I will not support a bill that tries to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their career.”

 

While many left-leaning media pundits expressed praise for the rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress, right-wing media condemned it. Ari Goodman from Fox News attacked Republicans for voting for, “A destructive policy of preventing Americans from lobbying their government which is moving us closer to something like George Orwell’s 1984.”  While American Prospect columnist Sarah Blachburn argued that the “fears” raised by conservative circles where unfounded since the lobbying bill targets how long a former politician can enter lobbying.

 

However those sentiments where not shared with Tom Donohue. In a lunch meeting with business leaders in Washington, Mr. Donohue told the crowd that the Republican leaders had betrayed businesses owners whether they be big or small by supporting this bill and the CoC would do anything to restore pro-business leaders back into the Republican Party. Many political insiders have stated that the CoC may target Republicans in the upcoming elections with political donations and while nothing has been stated, insiders at the CoC have stated that Rebecca Morris’s recent senate campaign announcement gives the organization an ample way to send a message to the Republicans.  

On 9/22/2017 at 6:47 PM, Christopher Williams said:

Requesting White House press secretary and any major gay rights group's quote and/or that of a Hollywood actor/producer on the docketed Federal Marriage Amendment and the new polling suggesting most Americans aren't in favor of same sex marriage. 

Steven Spielberg has come out against the Federal Marriage Amendment, calling it a severe travesty on human rights however he has declined to address the polling numbers. 

Enquiring minds want to know

10 hours ago, Christopher Williams said:

Requesting quote from Gore, officials close to ore or sources close to Gore about his thinking regarding the legislative effort currently in Congress that prohibits Federal funds to implement the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

While the Vice President has yet to directly comment on the attempts of Congress, insiders within his office state the VP is extremely disappointed by their actions, calling it a dangerous refusal in recognizing that global warming exists while this attempt to prohibit federal funds for Kyoto may damage future US negotiation power.   

22 hours ago, Christopher Williams said:

Can I get a quote from an official from the CoC about their opposition to lobbying reform?

"The United States believes fundamentally in freedom of speech and freedom of association, what the lobbying bill attempts to do is restrict the ability of Americans who choose to lobby on behalf of issues that they deem important to them. With the logic that is being used by the extreme left of the Democratic party and the unfriendly business Republicans, former Congressmen and women couldn't lobby for example on healthcare or the economy. Any American should have the right to petition and lobby their government, this bill takes away the right of Americans to do so."

Since it's Rosh Hashannah, I will hardly be active on the forum until Saturday afternoon or sunday. Also I may be delayed in answering telegram messages but if it is urgent, please still message me and I'll try to answer!

Player Media now have a subforum just for them to post their bank accounts.

AB members and I will throw you guys potential stories here for you to write about and steer the national conversation.