Text

Tom Delay in 1990 - Inviting Mandela to speak diminishes the honor of addressing Congress

ADDRESSING CONGRESS IS AN HONOR WHICH HAS BEEN DIMINISHED - HON. TOM DELAY (Extension of Remarks- June 26, 1990)

HON. TOM DELAY in the House of Representatives

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1990


• Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to learn that the Members of this body are diminishing the value of the honor of addressing the U.S. Congress.
• Today, Mr. Nelson Mandela addressed a joint meeting of Congress. He is not a head of State nor has he been victorious in his struggle. This is
unprecedented in the history of our Congress. What’s more is that while all of us in Congress want to see an end to apartheid, I doubt that any of our Members would support the kind of governmentally oppressive society that Mr. Mandela would seek to impose.
• Keep in mind that Mr. Mandela still actively supports Marxism. Keep in mind that Mr. Mandela still refuses to renounce violence and terrorism. Keep in mind that Mr. Mandela still publicly praises and admires tyrants and terrorists like Fidel Castro, Mu’ammar Qaddahi and Vasser Arafat.
• In fact, Mr. Mandela recently stated that he supported the terrorists who in 1954 attempted to assassinate Members of Congress right here in the hallowed Chamber of the House of Representatives. He praised the terrorists at a rally in New York City and considered them to be comrades.
• As recently as 1 month ago, Mr. Mandel a declared that Cuba ‘stands head and shoulders above’ the other nations of the world ‘in its love for human rights and liberty.’
• Fidel Castro is a tyrant and despot and Mr. Mandela’s praise of him is greatly misplaced. It is precisely for this reason that five Cuban-American mayors in South Florida have denounced Mr. Mandela for refusing to condemn the human rights violations in Cuba.
• The United States of America and the U.S. Congress have been a beacon of leadership for the principles of liberty, democracy, and human rights for more than 200 years.
• Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, Nelson Mandela is no friend to liberty,
democracy, or human rights. He is the deputy president of the African
National Congress. Their support for liberty and freedom is feigned. The ANC has announced their own constitutional guidelines which call for democracy, the freedom to form political parties, and freedoms of association, thought, worship, and the press.
• However, all of these rights are subject to the direct approval of the ANC which could ban any and all state or social institutions which do not ‘take active steps to eradicate, speedily, the economic and social inequalities produced by racial discrimination.’ Further, the ANC would reserve the right to ban any or all groups which the ANC believes is ethnically or regionally exclusive.
• The ANC does not respect nor defend human rights. Our own Defense
Department has appropriately labeled the ANC a terrorist organization. Nelson Mandela even admitted last April that it is a practice of the ANC to torture and execute its own members when they try to exercise freedom of thought and not obey the directives of the ANC. In fact, throughout Nelson Mandela’s 27 years of imprisonment, Amnesty International never recognized him as a political prisoner because he was not jailed for his political viewpoints, but for his personal involvement in violent activities.
• Mr. Speaker, by allowing Nelson Mandela to address the U.S. Congress
without renouncing violence, terrorism, or tyranny we have done an extreme injustice to all of those persons who have come to address Congress before him.
• I deeply regret the decision to invite Nelson Mandela to speak at a joint
session and cannot participate under these circumstances.

From the Congressional Record

Text

Making sure my mom can still vote in Texas

By special guest blogger, my wife, Sally Carter

I really love talking politics with my Mom and Dad. They’re both what I would consider “moderate” politically (i.e., not crazy), with my Mom tending towards the left and my Dad pretty squarely on the right, and as someone who considers herself a firm progressive, I always find their opinions and points of view valuable.  I grew up in Texas, and while I don’t live there anymore (I am, at present, in the similarly frustrating political landscape of Georgia), my parents and a good-sized portion of my heart reside in the Lone Star state. And so at a family gathering/event this past weekend in the politically-neutral state of Minnesota, I was excited to have an opportunity to talk with them in person about some events that have been unfolding recently in Texas.

Me: “So have you been following the new voter ID thing?”

Mom: “I don’t think so, what new voter ID thing?”

(Dad quickens pace to slightly faster than wife and daughter, reaches plausible out-of-earshot distance)

 Me: “So you know how you have to have your driver’s license to vote now, photo ID?”

 Mom: “Yes…”

 Me: “So for some reason, a long time ago they made it the law in Texas that your driver’s license has to have your maiden name on it, even if it’s not legally part of your name anymore – is that how yours is?”

Mom: “Really? I’m not actually sure what mine says,”

Me: “Yeah, well your license probably has your maiden name on it like it’s your middle name, but the name on your voter’s registration has your real full name,”

(Dad slows pace, could be considered to be actively listening to conversation)

Mom: “So….?”

Me: “So they don’t match. The name on your ID doesn’t match the name they have on the roll,”

Mom: “Oh. Wait…”

Me: “So, fun new rule – you and every other married woman in Texas might have problems when they go to vote,”

(Dad makes skeptical face and noise, re-quickens pace)

Mom: “So what do I need to prove that those names are both me?”

Me: “Your marriage certificate. Not a copy.”

Mom: “I’m not bringing my marriage certificate. I’m not digging that out,”

Me: “Well, they might try to make you vote on a provisional ballot. A judge had problems when she went to vote last week,”

Mom: “I have to check and see how my name is on my voter’s registration,”

Me: “And this is all just in time for Wendy Davis and the election for governor,”

Mom: “But someone will challenge this right? It will go to court?”

Me: “I don’t know, the reason they get to do this is because the Supreme Court overturned part of the Voting Rights Act, remember just a few months ago?”

(At this point, most of the relevant information has been exchanged, and the rest of the discussion consists of me and my mom making appropriately disparaging remarks about Republican politicians in Texas. You get the idea.)

It turned out that my mother’s driver’s license did indeed have her maiden name on it, which did not match the name under which she was registered to vote. However, Texas elections administrators announced that if the names were “substantially similar” a woman would simply have to sign an affidavit and would then be allowed to vote – a regular ballot, not a provisional one.

My mom usually votes on Election Day (in this case, November 5). But today, the very first day my parents got back to Texas, my mom looked up the closest polling place for early voting and went down there so that she could take care of the name discrepancy and make sure that she was able to cast her ballot in time. As promised, she was allowed to vote after signing an affidavit. She was also permitted to change her name on the voter registration rolls so that it matched the name on her driver’s license.

Me: “So you had to show something as proof to change your name on the rolls, right? Did you take your marriage certificate after all?”

Mom: “Nope”

Wait, WHAT? What has all of this been about? If it isn’t really a problem that the names on the roll and the names on the IDs aren’t exactly the same, then why make everyone go through this affidavit business? Even if I pretend to agree that voter fraud is an actual problem in Texas, just how, precisely, does this reduce it?

One might conclude that this is simply adding an extra step (and time, and resources) to the voting process. And that this extra step mainly affects women. And that some women like my Mom will be expecting this extra step and make sure that they have enough time to take care of it, but many of them won’t. And whether they are expecting it or not, women like my Mom – who are white and live in nice, upper middle-class suburban neighborhoods – most likely won’t have a problem having their affidavits approved by the election officials. But hey, this year Texas is just voting on dull, constitutional amendments. One might conclude that we won’t really understand the effects of this rule until a more exciting, higher-turnout election is held – you know, like an election for governor.

Text

GOP Rep Joe Barton’s alternative to Obamacare: More people on Medicaid

October 17, 2013 - Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), during an interview with Texas conservative talk radio host Mark Davis, offered an alternative to Obamacare.  People with pre-existing conditions and no insurance (who Barton admits would be helped by Obamacare), should instead be put on Medicaid.  Preparing for the walk-back in 5, 4, 3…

Listen to the full interview here

Text

Congressman Mick “There is No Default” Mulvaney experienced at not paying bills

Congressman John Michael (Mick) Mulvaney (R-SC) has been one of the members of Congress aguing that not raising the debt ceiling wouldn’t be that big of a deal. He has accused President Obama of lying about the serious consequences that would result if the US couldn’t pay all of its bills. Mulvaney may be speaking from experience: He doesn’t pay all of his bills, and it doesn’t seem to have bothered him at all.

The Congressman’s company, The Mulvaney Group Ltd, owes Mecklenburg County, NC at least $7,854.65 in back taxes. The oldest of the bills was due on September 1, 2008.

Mulvaney Group Ltd Taxes Due by jecarter4

Text

33 Members of Congress who have benefited from farm subsidies yet voted to cut food stamps

image

Full data can be seen here

Text

National Anti-Choice Groups’ Model Legislation in Texas

Section 3 of HB 2 / SB 1 would add two subchapters to Chapter 171 of Texas’ Health and Safety Code: Subchapters C and D.

Subchapter C, the “fetal pain” provision, banning abortion after 20 weeks, has its origin in model legislation from the National Right to Life Committee. Its provenance is described in detail in this previous post.

Subchapter D regulates “abortion-inducing drugs.” It is (almost verbatim) the "Abortion-Inducing Drugs Safety Act" by Americans United for Life.

An example from the definitions:

TX HB 2 / SB 1:

(1)  "Abortion" means the act of using, administering, prescribing, or otherwise providing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman and with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the woman ’s unborn child. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A)  save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(B)  remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion;

(C)  remove an ectopic pregnancy; or

(D)  treat a maternal disease or illness for which a prescribed drug, medicine, or other substance is indicated.

AUL Model:

B. “Abortion” means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child. Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to:

1. Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child;

2. Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion;

3. Remove an ectopic pregnancy; or

4. Treat a maternal disease or illness for which the prescribed drug is indicated.

An example from the main portion of the bill:

TX HB 2 / SB 1:

(a) A person may not knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, provide, or prescribe an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman for the purpose of inducing an abortion in the pregnant woman or enabling another person to induce an abortion in the pregnant woman unless:

(1)  the person who gives, sells, dispenses, administers, provides, or prescribes the abortion-inducing drug is a physician; and

(2)  except as otherwise provided by Subsection (b), the provision, prescription, or administration of the abortion-inducing drug satisfies the protocol tested and authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration as outlined in the final printed label of the abortion-inducing drug.

AUL Model:

A. It shall be unlawful to knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, otherwise provide, or prescribe any abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman for the purpose of inducing an abortion in that pregnant woman, or enabling another person to induce an abortion in a pregnant woman, unless the person who gives, sells, dispenses, administers, or otherwise provides or prescribes the abortion-inducing drug is a physician, and the provision or prescription of the abortion-inducing drug satisfies the protocol authorized by the FDA as outlined in the final printed labeling (FPL) for the drug or drug regimen.

 

Video

March 7, 2013 - While expressing his opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban, Senator John Cornyn says that mental illness is the common element in all of the recent shooting rampages. He says he wants to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

On June 4, 2008, Senator Cornyn released this statement:

As more and more of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are being diagnosed with mental health conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, many others are not reporting their symptoms because of stigmas or worries about the impact such a diagnosis will have on their military careers. As a result, many of our men and women in uniform are not receiving the vital care they need to overcome these conditions.

If Senator Cornyn is really worried about weapons in the hands of the mentally ill, and says that many veterans may have mental illnesses that aren’t reported, why would he offer an amendment to the Assault Weapons Ban to exempt veterans?

Which is more likely, that Cornyn doesn’t believe that many veterans have unreported mental illnesses or that he doesn’t mind allowing the mentally ill to have weapons?

Video

Rep. Tom Price thinks the sequester is necessary to “get this economy rolling again.” 

According to information from the White House, If sequestration were to take effect, some examples of the impacts on Georgia this year alone are: 

  • Teachers and Schools: Georgia will lose approximately $28.6 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 390 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 54,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 80 fewer schools would receive funding.
  • Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Georgia will lose approximately $17.5 million in funds for about 210 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities. 
  • Work-Study Jobs: Around 2,490 fewer low income students in Georgia would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 890 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college. 
  • Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 1,700 children in Georgia, reducing access to critical early education.
  • Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Georgia would lose about $3.5 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Georgia could lose another $979,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.
  • Military Readiness: In Georgia, approximately 37,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $190.1 million in total.
  • Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $233 million in Georgia. 
  • Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Georgia would be cut by about $5 million. 
  • Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Georgia will lose about $427,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives. 
  • Job Search Assistance to Help those in Georgia find Employment and Training: Georgia will lose about $873,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 33,160 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment. 
  • Child Care: Up to 1,100 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.  
  • Vaccines for Children: In Georgia around 4,180 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $286,000.
  • Public Health: Georgia will lose approximately $925,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Georgia will lose about $2.5 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2400 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And Georgia health departments will lose about $571,000 resulting in around 14,300 fewer HIV tests.  
  • STOP Violence Against Women Program: Georgia could lose up to $208,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 800 fewer victims being served.  
  • Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Georgia would lose approximately $1.3 million in funds that provide meals for seniors.

Which of the these will be good for Georgia’s economy?

Ask Tom Price.

Video

February 10, 2013 - On Fox News Sunday, John McCain said that Obama is losing the war in Iraq.

The last combat troops left Iraq on December 18, 2011.

So, according to Senator McCain, not being at war is losing… That actually explains a lot.

Link

January 10, 2013 - Congressman Phil Gingrey, at the Smyrna Area Council of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce breakfast, praised Jay Wallace, owner of Adventure Outdoors, as “the epitome of responsibility” in a gun business.

Audio from the Marietta Daily Journal via Evan McMorris-Santoro of TPM. Click here for audio of Gingrey’s full statement on gun control.

According to court records from a 2006 lawsuit filed by the City of New York

Defendant Adventure Outdoors, Inc. sells or sold handguns at its storefront establishment in Smyrna, Georgia. During the period from March 1994 through October 2001, at least 21 guns sold by Adventure Outdoors were recovered in New York City, both in the hands of individuals with no lawful right to possess a gun and in connection with a variety of violent crimes. In the period 1996 through 2000, a total of 254 guns sold by Adventure Outdoors were recovered in connection with crimes, nationwide. Guns sold by Adventure Outdoors have been recovered in the City in as few as 113 days after sale by Adventure Outdoors in Georgia.

Guns sold by the Defendants are recovered from prohibited persons in New York City in numbers that far exceed recoveries for other comparably-situated retail gun dealers. Guns sold by the Defendants are recovered in the hands of prohibited persons in disproportionate numbers because each Defendant sells handguns in a manner that either intentionally violates federal law or is contrary to stated industry practice or otherwise and therefore negligent. Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendants intentionally or negligently sell handguns to prohibited persons through “strawman” purchases, in which an individual legally able to buy a handgun purchases the gun from a licensed gun dealer, intending to transfer it immediately to a prohibited person.

Defendants know or should know that the handguns they sell in strawman purchases are transferred rapidly to prohibited persons. Defendants know or should know that they could readily reduce the number of guns transferred to prohibited persons by refusing to engage in straw sales. Yet, upon information and belief, Defendants have failed, and still fail, to take the steps necessary to avoid selling handguns in straw sales.

ATF has established that a very small percentage of retail gun dealers – about 1% – are responsible for approximately 57% of the illegally-possessed guns nationwide. The Defendants are among this small group of gun dealers who arm illegal gun possessors. As such, the Defendants cause, contribute to and maintain a public nuisance within the City of New York.

The complaint goes on to describe a particular incident involving Adventure Outdoors

On or about April 8, 2006, a male and a female investigator retained by the City of New York entered Adventure Outdoors’ Smyrna, Georgia store and engaged in a simulated straw purchase that displayed all of the observable, in-store characteristics of the straw purchases described above, without any subsequent transfer of the gun by the “straw purchaser.” Only the male investigator interacted with an Adventure Outdoors salesperson in discussing and selecting a Glock 9mm handgun to purchase. Once the male investigator had the gun and indicated a desire to purchase it, the female investigator, who had not been a part of the discussion, was summoned to the counter to make the purchase.

The female investigator filled out the paperwork. When the male investigator attempted to pay for the gun, the salesperson said that the male investigator needed to initial the form because he was paying for the gun. The male investigator initialed the form, the salesperson performed the background check, and the transaction was completed.

Other gun dealers in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania, unequivocally identified the virtually identical scenario, at times staged by the same investigators, as an attempted straw purchase. Some of those dealers refused to go through with the sales, even informing the investigators that these sales would be illegal.

On November 7, 2011, a “Special Master” was assigned to monitor Adventure Outdoors for three years to make sure that they no longer participate in straw sales.

Adventure Outdoors is one of the 1% of retail gun businesses that provide 57% of the illegally possessed guns. If Congressman Gingrey thinks that this epitomizes a responsible gun business does he think the other 99% are too strict?

Another part of this complaint that was particularly interesting:

The ATF is in possession of additional evidence demonstrating that guns sold by the Defendants were recovered both in the hands of individuals with no lawful right to possess a gun and in connection with a variety of violent crimes in New York City between November 2001 and May 2006. ATF has taken the position that recent legislation forbids it from providing this information to the City for the purposes of this lawsuit.

Hmm.