Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 5085
    MEMBERS
  • 132983
    MESSAGES
  • 33
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

118th US Congress Rules & Investigations   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started 2/11/23 by WALTER784; 68361 views.
In reply toRe: msg 20
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/11/23

H. R. 27
 
To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to direct district attorney and prosecutors offices to report to the Attorney General, and for other purposes.
 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 9, 2023
 
Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mr. Reschenthaler, Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Issa, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Spartz, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. McClintock, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, and Mr. Moylan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
 
A BILL
 
To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to direct district attorney and prosecutors offices to report to the Attorney General, and for other purposes.
 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
 
This Act may be cited as the “Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act”.
 
SEC. 2. DISTRICT ATTORNEY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR BYRNE GRANTS.
 
Section 501 of subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151) is amended—
 
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (h) and (i), respectively; and
 
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
 
“(g) District Attorney Reporting Requirements.—
 
“(1) IN GENERAL.—On an annual basis, each chief executive of a district attorney or prosecutor’s office that serves a jurisdiction of 380,000 or more persons, which jurisdiction receives funds under this part, shall submit to the Attorney General a report that contains, for the previous fiscal year, the following:
 
“(A) The total number of cases referred to the office for prosecution of a covered offense.
 
“(B) The number of cases such office declined to prosecute involving a covered offense.
 
“(C) For cases involving a covered offense that resulted in a plea agreement reached with the defendant—
 
“(i) the total number of such cases;
 
“(ii) the number of such cases by each initial charge; and
 
“(iii) the number of such cases by each charge of conviction.
 
“(D) The number of cases involving covered offenses initiated against a defendant—
 
“(i) previously arrested for a covered offense arising out of separate conduct;
 
“(ii) previously convicted for a covered offense arising out of separate conduct;
 
“(iii) with an open case involving a covered offense arising out of separate conduct;
 
“(iv) serving a term of probation for a conviction for a covered offense arising out of separate conduct; and
 
“(v) released on parole for a conviction for a covered offense arising out of separate conduct.
 
“(E) The number of defendants charged with a covered offense—
 
“(i) who were released on their own recognizance;
 
“(ii) who were eligible for bail; and
 
“(iii) for whom the prosecutor requested bail.
 
“(2) UNIFORM STANDARDS.—The Attorney General shall define uniform standards for the reporting of the information required under this subsection, including the form such reports shall take and the process by w
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 21
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/11/23

H. R. 28
 
To require the national instant criminal background check system to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the relevant State and local law enforcement agencies whenever the information available to the system indicates that a person illegally or unlawfully in the United States may be attempting to receive a firearm.
 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 
January 9, 2023
Mr. Steube (for himself, Mr. Reschenthaler, and Mr. Fitzgerald) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
 
A BILL
 
To require the national instant criminal background check system to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the relevant State and local law enforcement agencies whenever the information available to the system indicates that a person illegally or unlawfully in the United States may be attempting to receive a firearm.
 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
 
This Act may be cited as the “Illegal Alien NICS Alert Act”.
 
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT NICS NOTIFY ICE AND STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF ATTEMPTED RECEIPT OF FIREARM BY PERSON ILLEGALLY OR UNLAWFULLY IN THE UNITED STATES.
 
Section 103(e) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
 
“(3) REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY ICE AND STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF ATTEMPTED RECEIPT OF FIREARM BY PERSON ILLEGALLY OR UNLAWFULLY IN THE UNITED STATES.—The Attorney General shall ensure that, whenever the information available to the system established under this section indicates that a prospective firearm transferee is illegally or unlawfully in the United States, the system shall transmit to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and to relevant State and local law enforcement agencies a notice that the person may have attempted to receive a firearm in violation of section 922(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code, and shall include with the notice all relevant information possessed by the system.”.

Text - H.R.28 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Illegal Alien NICS Alert Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

FWIW

In reply toRe: msg 22
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/11/23

H. R. 7
 
To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.
 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 
January 9, 2023
 
Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself, Mrs. Fischbach, Ms. Stefanik, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Ms. Foxx, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mrs. Bice, Ms. Mace, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Banks, Mr. Babin, Mr. Latta, Mr. Estes, Mr. Bost, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Cline, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ellzey, Mr. Feenstra, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Finstad, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Guest, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Issa, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Moore of Utah, Mr. Perry, Mr. Posey, Mr. Rose, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Womack, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Mast, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Smucker, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Carl, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Fleischmann, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Kustoff, Mr. Harris, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. LaMalfa, Mrs. Kim of California, Mr. Huizenga, Mrs. McClain, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. Waltz, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Mann, Mr. Gaetz, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Ezell, Ms. Letlow, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. LaTurner, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Fry, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. McHenry, Mrs. Boebert, Mr. Turner, Mr. Barr, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Green of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
 
A BILL
 
To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.
 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
 
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023”.
 
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
 
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
 
TITLE I—PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS
 
Sec. 101. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions.
Sec. 102. Amendment to table of chapters.
 
TITLE II—APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
 
Sec. 201. Clarifying application of prohibition to premium credits and cost-sharing reductions under ACA.
Sec. 202. Revision of notice requirements regarding disclosure of extent of health plan coverage of abortion and abortion premium surcharges.
 
TITLE I—PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS
 
SEC. 101. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS.
 
Title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
 
“CHAPTER 4—PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS
 
“301. Prohibition on funding for abortions.
“302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover abortion.
“303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees.
“304. Construction relating to separate coverage.
“305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for health coverage.
“306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws.
“307. Construction relating to complications arising from abortion.
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 23
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/11/23

H. R. 26
 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 23 (legislative day, January 3), 2023
Received; read the first time
 
January 25, 2023
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
 
AN ACT
 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
 
This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.
 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
 
(a) Findings.—Congress finds as follows:
 
(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
 
(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
 
(b) Constitutional Authority.—In accordance with the above findings, Congress enacts the following pursuant to Congress’ power under—
 
(1) section 5 of the 14th Amendment, including the power to enforce the prohibition on government action denying equal protection of the laws; and
 
(2) section 8 of article I to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution of the United States, including the power to regulate commerce under clause 3 of such section.
 
SEC. 3. BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION.
 
(a) Requirements Pertaining To Born-Alive Abortion Survivors.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
 
Ҥ 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors
 
“(a) Requirements For Health Care Practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’)):
 
“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—
 
“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
 
“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
 
“(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
 
“(b) Penalties.—
 
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 24
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/13/23

Judge orders Biden DHS to release files on agents who 'helped censor election misinformation'

'Colluded and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints'

By WND News Services
Published January 25, 2023 at 6:09pm

A Louisiana judge ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to release files that could reveal five agents’ alleged involvement in government efforts to suppress social media content deemed to contain “misinformation” about elections, court documents show.
 
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry moved to release testimony from Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) employees Chad Josiah, Rob Schaul, Alex Zaheer, John Stafford and Pierce Lowary, after learning of their participation in the Biden administration’s counter-“disinformation” efforts, court documents dated Jan. 19 show. The judge’s motion Wednesday could shed light on a “switchboarding” tactic employed during the 2020 election, according to the order.
 
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, which include the named individuals as well as President Joe Biden and top officials from a variety of federal agencies, “colluded and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-formation.”
 
The five CISA employees allegedly served as a “switchboard” to route requests from federal agencies to censor disinformation to various social media companies, according to the documents.
 
Switchboard work employed “an audit official to identify something on social media they deemed to be disinformation aimed at their jurisdiction,” top CISA election security agent Brian Skully testified in a deposition released Thursday. “They could forward that to CISA and CISA would share that with the appropriate social media companies.”
 
Skully’s deposition detailed participation of the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security‘s intelligence branch and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in meetings with social media firm executives to tackle online “misinformation” during the 2022 election cycle.
 
While the notices were intended to provide social media companies with situational awareness regarding attempts to spread disinformation on their platforms, “the idea was that they would make decision on the content that was forwarded to them based on their policies,” Skully said.
 
CISA also worked with the Center for Internet Security, a nonprofit aimed at protecting against cybersecurity threats that also plays a regulatory role election infrastructure, and official election organizations, in “switchboarding,” according to the deposition.
 
The deposition demonstrated that the Biden administration “weaponized” CISA “to suppress domestic free speech,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement after its release. Congress originally created CISA in 2018 to combat cyber threats to critical digital and physical infrastructure.
 
The DHS did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation request for comment.
 
A Louisiana judge ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to release files that could reveal five agents’ alleged involvement in government efforts to suppress social media content deemed to contain “misinformation” about elections, court documents show.
 
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry moved to release testimony from Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) employees Chad Josiah, Rob Schaul, Alex Zaheer, John Stafford and Pierce Lowary, after learning of their participation in the Biden administration’s counter-“disinformation” efforts, court documents dated Jan. 19 show. The judge’s motion Wednesday could shed light on a “switchboarding” tactic employed during the 2020 election, according to the order.
 
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, which include the named individuals as well as President Joe Biden and top officials from a variety of federal agencies, “colluded and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-formation.”
 
The five CISA employees allegedly served as a
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 25
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/14/23

House Republicans Just Blocked A Law That Would Have Allowed Illegal Immigrants To Vote In Washington, DC

By Mike LaChance
Published February 10, 2023 at 11:58pm

This week, House Republicans blocked a law that would have allowed non-citizens to vote in municipal elections in Washington, DC.
 
This is a reminder of how important the midterm elections are. If the Novermber elections had only gone a little bit differently, this law would have passed.
 
More than 150 Democrats voted for this measure.
 
The Federalist reported:
 
House Republicans Block DC Law That Would Allow Illegal Residents To Vote
 
In a win for election integrity, the House of Representatives voted to overturn a D.C. law that would give noncitizens a right to vote in municipal elections Thursday.
 
“I applaud the House for acting to ensure that foreign spies and illegal immigrants are not voting in the nation’s capital,” Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project Action (HEPA), said in a statement regarding the vote. “Thanks to a Constitutional right and since the District is not a state, the House acted as it should have and has moved to stop this extreme and antidemocratic measure.”
 
According to the Constitution, Congress has the ability to block laws passed in the District. The GOP-led House voted 260-173 to overturn the new law, with 42 Democrats joining Republicans. For the law to be overturned, it must also be voted against in the Democratic-led Senate and signed by the President. While President Biden has said he opposes the law, he has not stated whether or not he will veto it.
 
The D.C. Council passed D.C. Bill 24.300 last year, which lowered the qualifications for voting in D.C.’s municipal elections to just one month of residency in the District, discarding the previous U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status requirement. The law goes into effect starting in 2024.
 
This is directly connected to what’s happening at the border.
 
Be glad that Republicans took the House in November. They are now one of the only lines of defense against what Democrats are trying to do.

House Republicans Just Blocked A Law That Would Have Allowed Illegal Immigrants To Vote In Washington, DC (thegatewaypundit.com)

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

2/14/23

It won't matter. DC shipped their immigrants to other states.

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/14/23

What matters in this case is that the House can block future such bills as well!!!

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

2/14/23

For the next two years. Then they have to keep the House.

In reply toRe: msg 1
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

2/15/23

A Checklist for House Select Subcommittee on COVID-19 Pandemic to Hold Government Accountable

Robert Moffit
January 19, 2023

The House of Representatives in the new 118th Congress is off to a good start. In adopting a set of innovative rules governing its parliamentary deliberations, the new House Republican majority has authorized the creation of a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic with broad jurisdiction.
 
After three years, and more than 1 million deaths in the U.S. associated with COVID-19, a comprehensive, sober, and detailed investigation into the federal government’s response is a necessary precondition for restoring Americans’ trust in federal public health agencies.
 
Specifically, that includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Office of the Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services.  
 
A Heritage Foundation analysis of the federal public health performance identified 13 pandemic-related topics that deserve detailed congressional inquiry. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
 
Narrow partisanship has no place here. Several of these key problem areas span the presidential administrations of both Donald Trump, a Republican, and Joe Biden, a Democrat.
 
The first order of business is, and should be, a deep dive into the origins of the novel coronavirus and any American taxpayer funding that may have contributed, perhaps inadvertently, to its evolution.
 
Given Communist China’s stubborn noncooperation, answering the question of how, exactly, the virus developed is an enormous challenge. Congressional work by the minority staff in the House and Senate has already helped to lay the groundwork for future probing.
 
In conducting such a probe, congressional investigators should be prepared to summon credible Chinese defectors and enlist the crucial assistance of scientists who specialize in the field of evolutionary virology.
 
Beyond that challenging task, Congress should, among other things, get some clear answers from the relevant federal officials on several other key questions. For example:
 
Why did the CDC, despite statutory requirements dating back to 2006, fail to modernize and upgrade its systems of data collection and dissemination? Dr. Deborah Birx, former coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force under Trump, has already told Congress that “the No.1 public health issue in the United States today is that there is no comprehensive database or integration of data from laboratories, public health institutions, and clinics.”  
 
Why did federal public health authorities send out confusing messaging on the value of masks and mask mandates? Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Nancy Messonnier of the CDC and then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams initially insisted, very publicly and sometimes vehemently, that masking was unnecessary or ineffective. Previous studies on masking indeed failed to provide strong support for cloth masking, let alone mask mandates. Between February and April 2020, however, top federal officials did a U-turn, and insisted on the value of a masking policy that they previously opposed. What was the new scientific evidence, then available in the professional literature, for such a dramatic policy reversal in that brief period? Congress should find out.
 
Why did federal officials attempt to impose a set of unprecedented vaccine mandates on tens of millions of Americans without weighing the risks and benefits of vaccination for different cohorts of the population, based on age, the acquisition of natural immunity, or an underlying vulnerability to the virus?  Young and healthy persons faced little danger of severe illness or death from COVID-19. Robust findings in the professional literature demonstrated the strength of natural immunity. Recent research on vaccine boosters for young adults concludes that potential harms outweigh the benefits of the vaccination.
 
Answers to these questions are just the tip of the iceberg that the subcommittee must get to the bottom of. The Heritage analysis catalogues and documents other key topics and questions that must be pursued.  
 
For example, at the outset of the national medical emergency, federal officials botched diagnostic testing to assess the extent of the contagion; coordination among federal agencies was poor; the Strategic National Stockpile of medical equipment and supplies was deficient; federal recommendations for school closures and business lockdowns entailed enormous costs in lost learning, economic disruption, and damage to mental and physical health; and federal offic
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
TOP