Small Business Administration Stops All Loans Because Money Runs Out


(Kent Hoover)  The Small Business Administration has instituted a waiting list for its flagship 7(a) loans because the program hit its annual lending cap of $18.75 billion on Thursday.

SBA officials, lenders and small business groups are urging Congress to raise the program’s authorization to $23.5 billion in order to free up loans for small businesses. Demand for the program is high because the government-guaranteed loans are the primary source of long-term loans, which feature lower monthly payments, for small businesses.

Continue reading

‘Major hypocrisy’: US govt-funded agency admits marijuana can kill cancer cells

The National Institute on Drug Abuse, a US federal government research institute whose mission includes “bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction,” has officially admitted that marijuana extracts can kill cancer cells. Continue reading

Americans against Congress: Over 80% of citizens disapprove of lawmakers

Record-breaking numbers of Americans have lost support for Congress, according to a survey. Eighty-three per cent of respondents said they disapprove of the job its doing, while 57 per cent said they would replace every member of Congress if they could. Continue reading

NJ Senators Caught Scheming To Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate Guns

Several NJ Senators were unknowingly recorded on a hot microphone mocking gun owners and scheming for “a bill to… confiscate, confiscate, confiscate”




It seems that our State Senators in New Jersey look at the Second Amendment as a joke, and mock gun owners who took the time to testify at their committee meeting. Remember New Jersey may have the second most strict gun laws now!
The following link is to a You Tube video:

Video Description:

Audio captured and brought to attention by NJ2AS members

Loretta Weinberg (D-37), Sandra Cunningham (D-31), and Linda Greenstein (D-14), Nellie Pou (D-35)

What’s that you say?! They aren’t coming for our guns you say?!


We’ve narrowed down to who we believe was speaking in this video.

From waypasthadenough

The Second Amendment, as the rest of the Bill of Rights, is an acknowledgement of our natural-born rights, not a granting. The entire Bill of Rights is about keeping the governments in their place. The Second Amendment is about the common person’s right to own weapons of war so that we can keep the governments in their place by keeping the ‘monopoly on force’ in the hands of the people where it belongs, as in ‘We the people.’ Remember that? It will not be infringed any further and the ‘gun laws’ in existence will be repealed. End of discussion.

Guns don’t kill, governments do. Gun free zones are the problem, they allow armed criminals to kill. Arm the teachers, the administrators and the parents. Don’t allow the “Liberal”(commie) trash who control the so-called educational system to teach mindless pacifism that is ensconced in their arrogance of false civility.

If we have violent criminals in prison who have been convicted of a crime and can’t be trusted with weapons why is the govt. turning them back out on the street? So they can point at them and say “See, the sheeple can’t be trusted with guns.” The ‘crime’ argument is a red herring.

Time to repeal all of the ‘gun laws’ including GCA ’68 and the NFA; Shut down the evil BATF Nazis and try them for treason, and murder where appropriate and distribute their retirement funds among their victims; Then enforce the Bill of Rights on places such as Commiefornia and New Yawk and Chigawgo and if necessary bring the troops home and have them restore Liberty here and remove Amerika’s natural born traitors in the process.

Millions will dig the ditch they are told to dig then wet their pants when the machine gun bolts slam home and die stupidly wondering “How did this happen to me?” The tiny minority will have to do what will be required.
It’s time to stop arguing over the culture war. It’s time to stop hunkering down for the apocalypse. It’s time to stop waiting to get beamed up. It’s time to start thinking Normandy.
If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.
The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.
What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?
Don’t understand? Go to willowtowndotcom and read the quotes page first. Then read my column “Prepping for Slavery.”

More from IntelliHub:

NJ State Senator’s Hot Mic On Guns: “Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate”

by Dean Garrison
Freedom Outpost
May 12, 2013

A few air-headed New Jersey State Senators proved that claim on Thursday when they had their own unknown “open-mic” moment. Though this may never compare to King Obama’s intimate moment with Medvedev, it has to rank as one of the top ten open-mic moments in the history of communist America.

The Examiner Reports:

A microphone left on after the gavel fell at a New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday shows the “true view” of some of the senators toward gun owners, and provides proof that gun confiscation is a goal on which they agree, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs revealed in an email to members and supporters today. The group is the official NRA state association.

“The discussion that was caught, apparently among several senators and staff, is outrageous, and reveals legislators’ true view of gun owners,” ANJRPC reports.

“The discussion appears to be among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14), and at least one member of Senate Democratic staff,” the gun group’s email explains.

Interesting lines allegedly coming from Weinberg, Cunningham, Greenstein and company include the following:

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

“They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.”

“They don’t care about the bad guys.  All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

“That’s the line they’ve developed.”

I personally don’t care about personal attacks toward gun owners and pro-2nd amendment Senators. Sticks and stones, as they say…

What should concern the people of the great State of New Jersey and Americans all across the land is this “confiscate, confiscate, confiscate” garbage.

It is unclear which of the Senators uttered these remarks but I have a message for her and all of her sexually retarded, emotionally immature friends.

MOLON LABE! Yeah I’m talking to you princess…

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” -Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. (1920)

Come on. You didn’t think I would throw those insults without a solid psychological basis for doing so. Did you? I’m no Sigmund Freud but when she repeats the word three times I feel like she must be triply-troubled. We had better get her on that confiscation list for the mentally unstable as soon as possible. She might be a left-wing terrorist in the making. Just saying.

Executive Action: Obama To Ban Importation of Ammo, Magazines and Gun Accessories Without Congressional Approval


Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.

Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop the President from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later. What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.

To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.

Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms – and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.

…it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:

“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.

I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.

Source: James Rawles’ Survival Blog via The Prepper Website

Just five days ago the President vowed to push forward on gun control without Congress and Nancy Pelosi argued that no matter what Congress says, gun control is inevitable.

This latest round of Executive Actions is what they meant.

A direct on attack on the second amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavily taxing ammunition and gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearms because of public safety concerns.

The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.

If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?

Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.

Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.

Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. (Photo John Moore/Getty Images)

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

“Clearly the  Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.

“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”

Still, Mr. Bloomberg argued the attacks shouldn’t be used as an excuse to persecute certain religions or groups.

“What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said.  “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”


President Barack Obama lashed out defiantly and viciously at political opponents who defeated his efforts to expand federal gun regulations today. Standing with families of victims of the Newtown school shooting at the White House, the president claimed that opponents of expanded federal background checks had “no coherent arguments” for their position, and that the “gun lobby” had “willfully lied” in the course of the debate.

Ironically, while accusing others of lying, President Obama resorted to false claims and statistics about current laws, including the repeatedly debunked argument that 40% of gun sales are private, and that guns can be bought over the Internet without background checks. It was partly the dishonesty of those very arguments that had led potential supporters of new bipartisan legislation to doubt the administration’s motives in supporting the bill.

The administration’s defeat came earlier Wednesday, when the Senate failed to pass a cloture motion to end debate on a bipartisan proposal introduced by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Only 54 votes of the necessary 60 votes could be found to support an expanded federal background check system (among other changes), partly because of fears that extending such checks would require the creation of a federal gun registry that could lead to confiscation.

The failure brought an end to four months of fervent campaigning by the president during which he used the Newtown disaster-or, in the eyes of many critics, exploited it-to make an argument about the urgent need for new laws, even if such laws would not have prevented the Newtown atrocity itself. Many Democrats rallied behind him, hoping at first to pass a new assault weapons ban, then abandoning that effort for more modest regulations.

Along the way, the administration lost the support of Democratic Senators in conservative states, many of whom will face re-election in 2014. President Obama made clear his intention to use Wednesday’s defeat to rally supporters against Republicans, whom he blamed directly and angrily, suggesting that they had defied the will of the American people and attempted to silence the families of Newtown victims who had a “right” to be heard in the debate.

Forced to cover a rare political defeat for the president, the mainstream media largely echoed his emotions. Virtually all of CNN’s correspondents agreed that the Manchin-Toomey bill had been defeated because of the power of the National Rifle Association and the fear of politicians afraid to take on Second Amendment activists. None considered that support for gun control has been declining, or that the legislation itself was deeply flawed.

Again and again, President Obama noted that 90% of Americans, and a majority of National Rifle Association members, supported expanded background checks. The former constitutional law lecturer seemed to expect that that majority’s will should be self-executing, ignoring the fact that constitutional rights like the Second Amendment exist precisely to protect minorities against majoritarian passions and presidential demagoguery.

Indeed, while the president described the failure of the legislation as a failure of “Washington,” it was also-and primarily-a failure of his administration. A White House operation and Obama campaign apparatus that is regarded as brutally effective ought to have been able to sell a proposal allegedly supported by 90% of the voting public. Yet persistent troubles in execution and failures of policy raise questions about whether Obama secretly preferred failure to success.

His opponents, the president insisted, refused to make it more difficult for “dangerous criminals” to buy weapons-ignoring one of the core arguments of the other side, namely that dangerous criminals frequently ignore the law to obtain weapons, while law-abiding citizens bear the burden of new rules and restrictions. He reduced his opponents’ motives to pure politics, accusing them of being afraid of being punished by an organized, determined minority.

Rarely have Americans ever seen a president attack his opponents so viciously, expressing and evoking such visceral emotions-especially at a time of mourning. President Obama’s tirade contrasted with his reserved, measured response to the Boston Marathon bombings, in which he urged Americans to speak and act with restraint. If this has been, as he claimed, “a pretty shameful day in Washington,” the president’s tantrum was the most shameful moment of all.

Gun bill clears Senate hurdle as filibuster falls short

(Fox News) Controversial gun legislation cleared a key Senate hurdle Thursday, as lawmakers voted 68-31 to start debate on the package which includes expanded background checks and new penalties for gun trafficking.

Senate Democrats, joined by 16 Republicans, were able to overcome an attempted filibuster by GOP senators opposed to the current bill. Those senators could still slow-walk the debate, but the Senate will eventually begin votes on amendments — one of which is considered crucial to winning support for a final vote.

The White House called Thursday’s tally an “important” but “early milestone,” as both sides of the issue prepare for a grueling debate — one that is being waged in Washington and on the airwaves.

The amendment likely to be at the front of the line is one from Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., which would scale back the call for universal background checks. The plan would expand checks to gun-show and Internet sales, but exempt certain personal transactions.

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights supporters voiced concern about the new proposal, saying it still goes too far. But the plan, offered by two lawmakers who are at the conservative end of their respective parties, could help ease opposition ahead of a final vote.

The legislation required at least 60 votes to advance Thursday. If the bill ultimately passes the Senate, it would still have to pass the Republican-dominated House.

“The hard work starts now,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged after Thursday’s vote.

He assured Democrats that a proposal to renew the assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines would get a vote as an amendment, though it was dropped from the main bill amid intense opposition. The main bill also includes a measure to increase school safety funding.

Reid lost two Democrats in Thursday’s vote — Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, both lawmakers from states with a strong tradition of gun ownership.

More than a dozen Republican senators for days had threatened to hold up the bill Thursday. They voiced concern that the proposal — namely, the background checks provision — would infringe on Second Amendment rights and impose a burden on law-abiding gun owners. They also expressed frustration that, while Manchin and Toomey touted their compromise measure, the bill on the table Thursday did not yet include that. Rather, it included a stricter background checks provision.

“Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it,” Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and Mike Lee, R-Utah, said in a statement. “The American people expect more and deserve better.”

Thursday’s vote follows an intense week of lobbying by gun control advocates, including the families of the victims of the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. That shooting prompted calls at the state and federal levels for new gun legislation.

Advocates like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group are likely to spar intensely with the NRA and conservative lawmakers in the coming days as lawmakers debate the bill and advance to a final vote.

FBI Conducting 32 Gun Purchase Background Checks Per Minute Under Obama

CNS News – by Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

During Barack Obama’s presidency there have been 32 background checks for gun purchases every minute.

Since February of 2009, the first full month of Obama’s presidency, there have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases, according to data released by the FBI.

Using February 1, 2009 as our starting date, and March 31, 2013 as our end date, (the latest data from the FBI) Obama has been president for 1,520 days.

That equates to 36,480 hours, or 2,188,800 minutes.

Divide the 70,291,049 background checks by 2,188,800 minutes and you get approximately 32 checks for gun purchases every minute!

SENATOR: “Banks Still Owe Us For The Bailouts!”

(Daily Bail) “Hank Paulson is the world’s greatest salesman.  We gave $700 billion to Wall Street and nobody cares.”

Outstanding new interview.  Inhofe beats on Henry Paulson.

Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change interviews Senator James Inhofe about his opposition to TARP and martial law threats he received from Henry Paulson.

Not stopping TARP was my biggest failure.

“Think about how big it was — $700 billion given to an unelected bureaucrat, with no accountability, to do anything he wanted with it.  Can this happen?  It did.”

Connecticut: State passes sweeping gun laws! More than 100 weapon types banned. You now have to register and have a state issued certificate to buy guns, ammo…

( Newtown parents, including Mark Barden, spoke at the state capitol building on Monday to call for a complete ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines

Lawmakers in the US state of Connecticut have agreed to a sweeping set of gun restrictions, including a ban on new high-capacity magazines.

The proposal requires background checks on all gun sales and expands the state’s assault weapons ban.

It comes as new federal gun measures appear to have stalled in Congress.


HARTFORD, Conn. (CBSNewYork) — Connecticut state lawmakers came to an agreement Monday on what they said will become some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws.

As CBS 2?s Lou Young reported, the deal included a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one that was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre in Newtown. The deal also calls for a new registry for existing high-capacity magazines, and background checks that would apply to private gun sales.

Connecticut lawmakers announced a deal Monday on what they called some of the toughest gun laws in the country that were proposed after the December mass shooting at a school in Newtown. Some highlights from the proposal:


—Ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines;

—Background checks for private gun sales;

Connecticut Lawmakers Agree to Gun Control Bill – Bans Magazines over 10 rounds, Requires a State Issued Permit to Buy Ammo, & Mental Checks!

Connecticut Lawmakers Agree to Gun Control Bill
Bans Magazines over 10 rounds
Requires a State Issued Permit to Buy Ammo
Must submit to universal background and Mental Checks
Bans any weapon with any “assault weapon” characteristics (pistol grips or anything that “looks scary”)

Conn. lawmakers unveil bipartisan gun control plan

Rev. Jesse Jackson Says Gun Supporters Are Domestic Terrorists

(Infowars) During an interview with the Wall Street Journal posted on January 30, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said “anti-government people” espousing what amounts to a “Confederate ideology” will engage in terrorist activities unless the government enacts draconian laws restricting the possession of firearms.

Jackson said the Second Amendment provides these domestic terrorists with the ability to “do something about how they feel” in their effort to “fight the government.”

The phrase “Confederate ideology” is shorthand for a political philosophy that stresses states’ rights (including nullification) and adherence to the Constitution.

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel said in January that Southern culture – a specific reference to gun culture prevalent in the South – is something that Democrats must work to overcome. “New York is a little different and more progressive in a lot of areas than some other states and some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome,” Rangel told MSNBC.

Jackson, a former Democrat presidential contender and the founder of the Rainbow Coalition, said in August that the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is the preferred weapon “for domestic, homegrown terrorism.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has also linked Second Amendment activists to terrorists. The organization argues the “radical right” is exploiting the gun rights issue to push a white supremacist political ideology.

The SPLC has worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security. In 2009, aleaked DHS document revealed the agency’s obsession with “Rightwing Extremists.”

In early December, sports columnist Jason Whitlock likened the NRA to the Ku Klux Klan, the racist organization established during Reconstruction by former Confederate soldiers.

“You know, I did not go as far as I’d like to go because my thoughts on the NRA and America’s gun culture — I believe the NRA is the new KKK,” Whitlock told CNN’s Roland Martin.

Whitlock’s comments inspired a widely-covered Bob Costas’ anti-Second Amendment halftime screed during a Dallas Cowboys-Philadelphia Eagles game broadcast live on NBC television.

Jackson’s comments underscore an ongoing effort by Democrats and other so-called progressives to characterize Second Amendment activists as domestic terrorists.

Jackson Calls for DHS on Streets of Chicago

Jackson has also called for the federal government to put the Department of Homeland Security on the streets on Chicago, according to Reuters.

He made the comment prior to a march on the city’s violence-wracked South Side. Jackson said Chicago mayor Rahmn Emanuel and city police are unable to address the problem and the federal government needs to intervene.

Chicago had 500 homicides in 2012 and more than 40 so far this year. The Obama administration and the establishment media exploited the murder of Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago after the 15-year-old girl performed at an event celebrating the inauguration of Obama last month.

“The details of her death shook Chicago and gave fuel to gun-control advocates in the running debate over firearms,” the New York Times reported last week. Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary, said the tragedy is “another example of the problem that we need to deal with.”

Jackson did not elaborate on his comment demanding the Department of Homeland Security patrol the streets of Chicago.

“Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. and Rainbow PUSH Coalition call for immediate Federal Intervention and Homeland Security in Chicago as January homicide totals exceeded 45,” a press release issued on Friday by Rainbow PUSH states. “Reverend Jesse Jackson reaffirms that gun control reform is critical and the ban on assault weapons paramount.”

The Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level department of the federal government. It was allegedly established in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks and describes its mission as protecting the United States from terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. It was not originally mandated to work with local police.

The 2005 USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act passed by Congress, however, established a “permanent police force” subject to the “supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

According to the legislation, this new federal police force is empowered to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony.”

“The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers,” former Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, wrote in 2006. “Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused… Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?”

The Obama administration has yet to respond to Jackson’s demand. However, as gang-related violence in Obama’s hometown and elsewhere continues to claim lives and dominate headlines, it is entirely possible the federal government may directly intervene in Chicago as part of its effort to attack the Second Amendment and further meddle in local law enforcement duties under the hysterical cover of putting an end to “gun violence.”

Do As We Say, Congress Says, Then Does What It Wants

(ProPublica) -When CBS News reported in 2011 [1] that members of Congress weren’t prohibited from insider trading, Congress moved swiftly.President Obama signed a law [2] banning it within six months of the broadcast.

But Congress is still exempt [3] from portions of a number of federal laws, including provisions that protect workers in the private sector but don’t apply to the legislative branch’s approximately 30,000 employees.


Here’s our rundown of measures Congress exempts itself from:

  • Whistleblower Protections: Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989, which protects workers in the executive branch from retaliation for reporting waste, mismanagement or lawbreaking. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act gives similar protections to private-sectors workers. But legislative-branch workers — a category that includes congressional staffers as well as employees of the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol and other offices —don’t get the same protections.
  • Subpoenas for Health and Safety Probes: The Occupational Health and Safety Act empowers the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate health and safety violations in private-sector workplaces. If an employer doesn’t cooperate, the agency can subpoena the records it needs. The Office of Compliance, the independent agency that investigates such violations in the legislative branch, doesn’t have the power to issue those subpoenas.
  • Keeping Workplace Records: A number of workplace-rights laws — the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and others — require employers to retain personnel records for a certain period of time. But as a recent report [4] on the congressional workplace notes, “Congress has exempted itself from all of these requirements.” Congress is also exempt from keeping records of injuries and illness the way private-sector employers are.
  • Prosecution for Retaliating Against Employees: If a private-sector employer retaliates against a worker for reporting health or safety hazards, the Department of Labor can investigate and, if necessary, sue the employer. Congress’ Office of Compliance doesn’t have that power — legislative-branch employees must file suit personally and pay their own legal fees.
  • Posting Notices of Workers’ Rights: Workplace-rights laws require employers to post notices of those rights, which often appear in office lunchrooms. Congress is exempt from this requirement, though this has little real-world impact. The Office of Compliance sends legislative employees the same information each year, formatted “in a manner suitable for posting.”
  • Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Training: The No Fear Act requires agencies in the executive branch to provide such training to employees, but the legislative branch is exempt.
  • The Freedom of Information Act: The public can request information from federal agencies, but Congress, the federal courts and some parts of the Executive Office of the President are exempt.

In addition to sparing itself from complying with measures it has made mandatory for others, Congress is violating of some of the laws that do apply to it, according to a recent report [5] from the Office of Compliance. (The pint-sized agency, created by Congress in 1995, is responsible for enforcing a number of workplace-rights laws in the legislative branch.) The sidewalks surrounding the three House office buildings, the report noted, don’t comply [6] with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Neither do the restrooms in the House and Senate office buildings and the Library of Congress’ James Madison Building.

The Office of Compliance cites certain congressional exemptions as particularly problematic. The agency’s inability to subpoena information regarding some legislative workers’ complaints about health and safety often means the office must negotiate with congressional offices to gather the facts it needs.

“It can tie our hands sometimes,” said Barbara J. Sapin, the office’s executive director.

The Office of Compliance has urged Congress to apply the laws listed above to itself — except the Freedom of Information Act — with little result. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate who represents the District of Columbia, introduced a bill [7] in 2011 to do this, but it died in committee.

The number of complaints [8] of discrimination and harassment filed by legislative-branch workers with the Office of Compliance has nearly doubled in the last two years, from 102 in the 2009 fiscal year [9] to 196 in the 2011 fiscal year [5]. Workers’ complaints about retaliation or intimidation have risen even more sharply, from 36 in fiscal year 2009 to 108 in fiscal year 2011.

Even so, Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer who specializes in workplace-rights law, said some Capitol Hill employees might be holding back from filing complaints. House and Senate staffers, she said, are often reluctant to speak up about harassment or discrimination for fear of jeopardizing their careers.

“People are very loath to burn bridges by filing a complaint or going to the Office of Compliance,” she said. “They don’t want to go forward with bringing a claim, even when it’s covered under the law.”

Poll: 75 percent want Hill term limits

(Politico) -Three out of four Americans support term limits for members of Congress, a  new poll finds.

According to a Gallup survey posted Friday, 75 percent of adults nationwide back  term limits for members of the House and the Senate, while 21 percent say they  would vote against term limits. Term limits received bipartisan support in the  poll: Republicans would back such a measure 82 percent-15 percent; independents  would do so 79 percent-17 percent and Democrats favored term limits 65  percent-29 percent, even as most incumbents won their races again in November,  Gallup noted.

This survey comes at a time when many Americans have a negative opinion of  the Hill. Gallup reported on Jan. 11 that Congress had an approval rating of  just 14 percent.

The poll also found that 63 percent of those surveyed would end the Electoral  College, while 29 percent would not support abolishing the institution. There  was little split along party lines for this question: Republicans support doing  away with the Electoral College 61 percent-30 percent; Democrats say the same,  66 percent-30 percent; as do independents, 63 percent-29 percent.


The survey of 1,013 adults in the United States was conducted Jan. 8-9 and  has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points


House Reads Out Constitution, Only 74 Members Show Up

(Steve Watson) -In what was supposed to be a symbolic gesture of the enduring greatness of the US Constitution, and the rights it outlines for all Americans, the House read the entire document out aloud on the chamber floor yesterday. However, the symbolism backfired somewhat when only a fraction of representatives bothered to show up.

In the midst of the Obama administration’s ongoing efforts to eviscerate the Second Amendment by executive order, it was extremely telling that so few members of the House took the time to show their respect for the Constitution.

The document was divided into 120 sections, with GOP House leaders believing that at least that many members would show up to each read a section.

When all was said and done, however, only 74 members attended. The Washington Times notes that the House ran out of Democrats before they even got past Article IV, which is less than halfway through the document.

Just 25 Democrats valued the idea enough to turn up for the reading, while a meager 49 Republicans attended. This meant that each reader had to take two or three sections.

The entire reading took around 66 minutes.


During the Preamble to the reading, Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte, who organised the event, stated “We also hope that this will demonstrate to the American people that the House of Representatives is dedicated to the Constitution and the system it establishes for limited government and the protection of individual liberty.”

When two Democrats shuffled in as the final reader was speaking, Goodlatte attempted to put a brave face on the situation, stating “We ran out of Constitution before we ran out of readers,”.

The Times also notes that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi seemed embarrassed that so few Democrats showed up, at one point she “gestured with a shrug to the nearly empty chamber”. Her Republican counterpart, Speaker of the House John Boehner was initially present but left before the end of the reading and did not take part.

The Second Amendment was read by Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., who also read the First and Third Amendments.

This was only the second time that the Constitution has been read in its entirety, without sections that were amended after the document was ratified in September 1787.

The first occasion was just two years ago, when 137 lawmakers attended.

It is to be expected that some members cannot always be present on the House floor, but with 435 representatives having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, it is pitiful, and a very telling sign of the times, that only around one sixth cared enough to participate in reading out the founding document.

U.S. Drone Pilot: ‘Did We Just Kill A Kid?’


After Barack Obama joined the rest of us in mourning the slaughter of innocent children in Newtown, Conn., Sanford Berman, a Minnesota civil liberties activist, wrote me: “Obama’s tears for the dead Connecticut kids made me sick. What about weeping over the 400 or more children he killed with drone strikes?”

Indeed, our president has shown no palpable concern over those deaths, but a number of U.S. personnel — not only the CIA agents engaged in drone killings — are deeply troubled.

Peggy Noonan reports that David E. Sanger, in his book “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” discovered that “some of those who operate the unmanned bombers are getting upset. They track victims for days. They watch them play with their children.” Then what happens: “‘It freaks you out’” (“Who Benefits From the ‘Avalanche of Leaks’?” Wall Street Journal, June 15).

For another example, I introduce you to Conor Friedersdorf and his account of “The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child” (, Dec. 19).

The subtitle: “May his story remind us that U.S. strikes have reportedly killed many times more kids than died in Newtown — and that we can do better.”

The story Friedersdorf highlights in the Atlantic first appeared in Germany’s Der Spiegel about an Air Force officer (not CIA) who “lamented the fact that he sometimes had to kill ‘good daddies’” … (and) “even attended their funerals” from far away.

And dig this, President Obama: “as a consequence of the job, he collapsed with stress-induced exhaustion and developed PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).” Yet these drones, “Hellfire missiles,” are President Obama’s favorite extra-judicial weapons against suspected terrorists.

Getting back to the Air Force officer, Brandon Bryant, with the guilty conscience. Friedersdorf’s story quotes extensively from Der Spiegel’s article, which recalls that, when Bryant got the order to fire, “he pressed a button with his left hand and marked the roof (of a shed) with a laser. The pilot sitting next to him pressed the trigger on a joystick, causing the drone to launch a Hellfire missile. There were 16 seconds left until impact …

“With seven seconds left to go, there was no one to be seen on the ground. Bryant could still have diverted the missile at that point. Then it was down to three seconds …

“Suddenly a child walked around the corner, he says. Second zero was the moment in which Bryant’s digital world collided with the real one in a village between Baghlan and Mazar-e-Sharif. Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared.

“Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.

“‘Did we just kill a kid?’ he asked the man sitting next to him.

“‘Yeah. I guess that was a kid,’ the pilot replied.

“‘Was that a kid?’ they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

“Then someone they didn’t know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. ‘No. That was a dog,’ the person wrote.

“They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?”

Friedersdorf adds: “The United States kills a lot of ‘dogs on two legs.’ The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported last August that in Pakistan’s tribal areas alone, there are at least 168 credible reports of children being killed in drone strikes.” As for those in other countries, he adds, that’s “officially secret.”

He writes: “Presidents Bush and Obama have actively prevented human-rights observers from accessing full casualty data from programs that remain officially secret, so there is no way to know the total number of children American strikes have killed in the numerous countries in which they’ve been conducted, but if we arbitrarily presume that ‘just’ 84 children have died — half the bureau’s estimate from one country — the death toll would still be more than quadruple the number of children killed in Newtown, Conn.”

Are you proud, as an American, to know this?

After reading about Obama’s silence in “The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child,” does the conscience of those of us who re-elected Obama ache?

As Friedersdorf writes, Obama has never spoken of these deaths as he did about the ones in Newtown, when he said: “If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent … then surely we have an obligation to try. … Are we really prepared to say that dead children are the price of our freedom?”

Do you mean, Mr. President, only the dead children of Newtown?

These targeted killings continue in our name, under the ultimate authority of our president — as the huge majority of We The People stays mute.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.

Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema Refuses Bible, Swears Oath To Constitution

(MSN Now) Kyrsten Sinema was sworn into Congress Monday, but with a twist: She didn’t swear on a Bible.

The newly elected representative for Arizona’s 9th district swore her oath of office on a copy of the Constitution instead.

Sinema refuses to confirm she is an atheist, as many believe, saying merely that she is “not a member of a faith community” and that all Americans deserve both “freedom of religion and freedom from religion.”

Keith Ellison of Minnesota also bucked the Bible trend in 2007 when he decided, as the first Muslim elected a member of the House, to swear on Thomas Jefferson’s personal copy of the Quran. [Source]

Congress less popular than root canal, cockroaches and lice, poll says


(Washington Times) -A new poll shows that Congress is less popular than carnies, root canals and colonoscopies, but more popular than the ebola virus, meth labs and gonorrhea.

Those findings are in a Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released Tuesday showed that 9 percent of the respondents held a favorable opinion of Congress, while 85 percent held an unfavorable view. “We all know Congress is unpopular,” said Dean Debnam, PPP president. “But the fact that voters like it even less than cockroaches, lice and Genghis Kahn real shows how far its esteem has fallen with the American public over the last few weeks.”

On the bright side, Congress came out of the survey in higher standing than North Korea, the Kardashian family, and actress Lindsay Lohan, as well as Cuba’s Fidel Castro and former Sen. John Edwards.

On the not-so-bright side, it lost out in the popularity contest to the rock band Nickelback, real estate magnate Donald Trump, NFL replacement refs and France.

The survey of 830 voters was performed between Jan. 3 and Jan. 6 and has a 3.4 percent margin of error. The results of the poll can be found here.

Fiscal Cliff Deal: Hollywood Gets Tax Incentive Extension

(Breitbart)-The Senate passed legislation meant to end the “fiscal cliff” crisis in the wee hours of the morning. And it seems Hollywood’s rigorous backing of President Barack Obama and his Democrat peers in the waning months of 2012 paid off.

Section 317 of the freshly approved legislation includes an extension for “special expensing rules for certain film and television productions.” Congress first enacted production tax incentives favorable to the domestic entertainment industry in 2004, and extended them in 2008, but the deal was meant to expire in 2011.

The fiscal cliff deal extends the tax incentives through 2013-even as payroll taxes rise on ordinary Americans.

The original tax incentive applied to productions costing less than $15 million to make ($20 million in low-income areas). The 2008 extension applies to all films, up to a deduction of $15 million (or $20 million in low-income areas). The incentive is especially generous to television series; it applies to each TV episode.

Hollywood players routinely beg the government to raise their taxes so they can pay their “fair share.”

Yet the industry moves new productions to places where existing tax breaks help its bottom line. That means plenty of shows and films are shot in states like New Mexico, which feature highly favorable tax rates, as well as destinations north of the border with similar perks.

Now Hollywood has used its clout to ensure that its generous tax incentives will continue in a time of fiscal crisis.

Obama Gives Raise to Biden, Congress as Fiscal Cliff Looms



Imagine you are working for a company that is going bankrupt, but everyone you work with and your bosses are getting pay raises. Seem absurd?

Not if you work for the failing federal government, because President Obama has decreed that Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and most federal workers are getting raises for 2013.

As the U.S. government is losing its luster on the bond market and as the fiscal cliff looms, President Obama issued an executive order to give everyone raises.

Obama has generously bestowed a $6,379 per year raise on Grampa Joe; he’s given members of the House a $900 increase; and he’s doled out a .5 percent pay increase to federal workers.

Jeryl Bier does the math on the raises federal workers will get.

Level I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $199,700
Level II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179,700
Level III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,300
Level IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155,500
Level V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145,700

Here are the rates in the just-signed Executive Order:

Level I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200,700
Level II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180,600
Level III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166,100
Level IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156,300
Level V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146,400

The pay raises will take effect on March 27, 2013.

As the President and the House seek to rearrange the deck chairs on this Titanic ship of state, Obama has decided it is a good idea to throw more coal into the furnaces. It’s full steam ahead and damn the financial torpedoes.

Surprise Surprise: Senate renews FISA 73-23



(Wired) -The Senate on Friday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the President George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) which was expiring Friday at midnight, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

The House approved the measure in September. President Barack Obama, who said the spy powers were a national security priority, is expected to quickly sign the package before the law Congress codified in 2008 expires in the coming hours. Over the past two days, the Senate debated and voted down a handful of amendments in what was seen as largely political theater to get Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to lift a procedural hold on the FISA Amendments Act legislation that barred lawmakers from voting on the package.

In the end, the identical package the House passed 301-118 swept through the Senate on a 73-23 vote.

Amendments senators refused to enact included extending the measure for just three years, another one requiring the government to account for how many times Americans’ communications have been intercepted, and one by Wyden prohibiting U.S. spy agencies from reviewing the communications of Americans ensnared in the program.

“The amendment I fought to include would have helped bring the constitutional principles of security and liberty back into balance and intend to work with my colleagues to see that the liberties of individual Americans are maintained,” Wyden said immediately after the vote.

The legislation does not require the government to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

The government has also interpreted the law to mean that as long as the real target is al-Qaeda, the government can wiretap purely domestic e-mails and phone calls without getting a warrant from a judge. That’s according to David Kris, a former top anti-terrorism attorney at the Justice Department.

In short, Kris said the FISA Amendments Act gives the government nearly carte blanche spying powers.

Kris, who headed the Justice Department’s National Security Division between 2009 and 20011, writes in the revised 2012 edition of National Security Investigations and Prosecutions:

For example, an authorization targeting ‘al Qaeda’ — which is a non-U.S. person located abroad—could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.

The National Security Agency told lawmakers that it would be a violation of Americans’ privacy to disclose how the measure is being used in practice.

After Obama signs the legislation Friday, the spy powers won’t expire until December 31, 2017.

The law is the subject of a Supreme Court challenge. The Obama administration argues that the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of other groups suing don’t have the legal standing to even bring a challenge.

A federal judge agreed, ruling the ACLU, Amnesty International, Global Fund for Women, Global Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, The Nation magazine, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union and other plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case because they could not demonstrate that they were subject to the warrantless eavesdropping.

The groups appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that they often work with overseas dissidents who might be targets of the National Security Agency program. Instead of speaking with those people on the phone or through e-mails, the groups asserted that they have had to make expensive overseas trips in a bid to maintain attorney-client confidentiality. The plaintiffs, some of them journalists, also claim the 2008 legislation chills their speech, and violates their Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Without ruling on the merits of the case, the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs last year that they have ample reason to fear the surveillance program, and thus have legal standing to pursue their claim.

The case, argued last month, is pending an opinion from the Supreme Court.

Senate set to approve FISA spying bill


(RT) -With less than a week until a powerful legislation expires that lets the government eavesdrop on the phone and email conversations of Americans, the Senate has convened in DC to discuss whether or not to renew the FISA Amendment Act.

The 2008 FISA Amendment Act, an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the 1970s, allows the government to wiretap any conversation involving US citizens, without obtaining a warrant, as long as investigators reasonably suspect those talks to involve at least one party located outside of the United States. Despite demands from members of Washington’s intelligence committee, though, very little information if any has been made available about how the government uses the FISA Amendment Act, or FAA, and whom they target.

“Everyone becomes suspect when big brother is listening,” Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said recently while arguing against renewing the FAA in the House of Representatives.

Despite pleas from Rep. Kucinich and others, the House has agreed to support renewing the FAA, a decision that has met the approval of the Obama White House as well.

Earlier this month, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) even told his colleagues in the Senate that there was no need to debate the bill at all since it had already received the blessing of US President Barack Obama.

Had Sen. Chambliss had his way, the Senate was likely to have skipped debates altogether and approved a renewal of the FAA without any discussion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) urged his peers to do otherwise, though, and insisted that talks be held in Washington immediately in order to tackle the FAA before it expires.

Should the Senate not re-new the FAA before December 31, the bill will expire and the warrantless wiretapping provisions will be erased. On Thursday, December 27, members of the Senate met in Washington to begin discussing the act. A vote was scheduled later in the afternoon, but then was moved to Friday.

If the FAA is renewed, the federal government will be extended the ability to warrantlessly wiretap Americans for another five years. If that is the case, though, Congress will be given another chance to consider provisions that will provide for at least some transparency only a day later.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), a long-time opponent of FISA, is expected to have the chance to introduce an amendment on Friday that, if approved, will force the National Security Agency (NSA) to finally open up about their use of the FAA’s warrantless wiretapping provisions.

Earlier this year, Sen. Wyden told Wired’s Danger Room, “If no one will even estimate how many Americans have had their communications collected under this law then it is all the more important that Congress act to close the ‘back door searches’ loophole, to keep the government from searching for Americans’ phone calls and emails without a warrant.”

Wyden — who sits on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committees — has unsuccessfully asked time and time against for the NSA to explain how they use the FAA. Even if the FAA is renewed this week, the approval of Sen. Wyden’s proposed amendment would mean the NSA would have to at least give a general estimate of how many Americans it has targeted since 2008.

Senators Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) are all expected to propose amendments that will influence how the NSA uses the FAA too.

List Of House Members Who Voted For HR 4310 NDAA Bill


On December 20 2012 The House Of Dis-Representatives passed the very controversial  HR 4310 NDAA  Bill by a count of 315 to 107.

Language regarding the “indefinite detention of Americans” has NOT been scrubbed from the bill.

If you’re unfamiliar with the magnitude  of this Amendment please read the two articles links below to get  a better idea  of what’s at stake. In the meantime  use the ” yea-nay” list to call your local representative and express your outrage at their unconstitutional voting pattern. Story 1   Story 2

YEA   R Young, Don AK
YEA   R Bonner, Jo AL 1st
YEA   R Roby, Martha AL 2nd
YEA   R Rogers, Mike AL 3rd
YEA   R Aderholt, Robert AL 4th
YEA   R Brooks, Mo AL 5th
YEA   R Bachus, Spencer AL 6th
YEA   D Sewell, Terri AL 7th
YEA   R Crawford, Rick AR 1st
YEA   R Griffin, Tim AR 2nd
YEA   R Womack, Steve AR 3rd
YEA   D Ross, Mike AR 4th
NAY   R Gosar, Paul AZ 1st
YEA   R Franks, Trent AZ 2nd
YEA   R Quayle, Ben AZ 3rd
YEA   D Pastor, Ed AZ 4th
NAY   R Schweikert, David AZ 5th
YEA   R Flake, Jeff AZ 6th
NAY   D Grijalva, Raul AZ 7th
YEA   D Barber, Ron AZ 8th
NAY   D Thompson, Mike CA 1st
YEA   R Herger, Wally CA 2nd
YEA   R Lungren, Daniel CA 3rd
NAY   R McClintock, Tom CA 4th
NAY   D Matsui, Doris CA 5th
NAY   D Woolsey, Lynn CA 6th
NAY   D Miller, George CA 7th
NAY   D Pelosi, Nancy CA 8th
NAY   D Lee, Barbara CA 9th
YEA   D Garamendi, John CA 10th
YEA   D McNerney, Jerry CA 11th
YEA   D Speier, Jackie CA 12th
NO VOTE   D Stark, Pete CA 13th
YEA   D Eshoo, Anna CA 14th
NAY   D Honda, Mike CA 15th
NAY   D Lofgren, Zoe CA 16th
NAY   D Farr, Sam CA 17th
YEA   R Denham, Jeff CA 19th
YEA   D Costa, Jim CA 20th
YEA   R Nunes, Devin CA 21st
YEA   R McCarthy, Kevin CA 22nd
YEA   D Capps, Lois CA 23rd
YEA   R Gallegly, Elton CA 24th
YEA   R McKeon, Buck CA 25th
YEA   R Dreier, David CA 26th
YEA   D Sherman, Brad CA 27th
YEA   D Berman, Howard CA 28th
YEA   D Schiff, Adam CA 29th
YEA   D Waxman, Henry CA 30th
NAY   D Becerra, Xavier CA 31st
NAY   D Chu, Judy CA 32nd
NAY   D Bass, Karen CA 33rd
NO VOTE   D Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA 34th
NAY   D Waters, Maxine CA 35th
NAY   D Hahn, Janice CA 36th
YEA   D Richardson, Laura CA 37th
NAY   D Napolitano, Grace CA 38th
YEA   D Sánchez, Linda CA 39th
YEA   R Royce, Ed CA 40th
YEA   R Lewis, Jerry CA 41st
YEA   R Miller, Gary CA 42nd
YEA   D Baca, Joe CA 43rd
YEA   R Calvert, Ken CA 44th
YEA   R Bono Mack, Mary CA 45th
YEA   R Rohrabacher, Dana CA 46th
YEA   D Sanchez, Loretta CA 47th
NAY   R Campbell, John CA 48th
YEA   R Issa, Darrell CA 49th
YEA   R Bilbray, Brian CA 50th
YEA   R Hunter, Duncan CA 52nd
YEA   D Davis, Susan CA 53rd
NAY   D DeGette, Diana CO 1st
NAY   D Polis, Jared CO 2nd
YEA   R Tipton, Scott CO 3rd
YEA   R Gardner, Cory CO 4th
YEA   R Lamborn, Doug CO 5th
YEA   R Coffman, Mike CO 6th
YEA   D Perlmutter, Ed CO 7th
YEA   D Larson, John CT 1st
YEA   D Courtney, Joe CT 2nd
NAY   D DeLauro, Rosa CT 3rd
NAY   D Himes, James CT 4th
NAY   D Murphy, Christopher CT 5th
NAY   D Carney, John DE
YEA   R Miller, Jeff FL 1st
YEA   R Southerland, Steve FL 2nd
YEA   D Brown, Corrine FL 3rd
YEA   R Crenshaw, Ander FL 4th
NAY   R Nugent, Richard FL 5th
YEA   R Stearns, Cliff FL 6th
YEA   R Mica, John FL 7th
YEA   R Webster, Daniel FL 8th
YEA   R Bilirakis, Gus FL 9th
YEA   R Young, Bill FL 10th
YEA   D Castor, Kathy FL 11th
YEA   R Ross, Dennis FL 12th
YEA   R Buchanan, Vern FL 13th
NAY   R Mack, Connie FL 14th
YEA   R Posey, Bill FL 15th
YEA   R Rooney, Thomas FL 16th
YEA   D Wilson, Frederica FL 17th
YEA   R Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana FL 18th
YEA   D Deutch, Ted FL 19th
YEA   D Wasserman Schultz, Debbie FL 20th
YEA   R Diaz-Balart, Mario FL 21st
YEA   R West, Allen FL 22nd
YEA   D Hastings, Alcee FL 23rd
YEA   R Adams, Sandy FL 24th
NO VOTE   R Rivera, David FL 25th
YEA   R Kingston, Jack GA 1st
YEA   D Bishop, Sanford GA 2nd
YEA   R Westmoreland, Lynn GA 3rd
NAY   D Johnson, Hank GA 4th
NAY   D Lewis, John GA 5th
YEA   R Price, Tom GA 6th
YEA   R Woodall, Rob GA 7th
YEA   R Scott, Austin GA 8th
NAY   R Graves, Tom GA 9th
YEA   R Broun, Paul GA 10th
YEA   R Gingrey, John GA 11th
YEA   D Barrow, John GA 12th
YEA   D Scott, David GA 13th
YEA   D Hanabusa, Colleen HI 1st
YEA   D Hirono, Mazie HI 2nd
NAY   D Braley, Bruce IA 1st
NAY   D Loebsack, David IA 2nd
NAY   D Boswell, Leonard IA 3rd
NAY   R Latham, Tom IA 4th
YEA   R King, Steve IA 5th
NAY   R Labrador, Raúl ID 1st
YEA   R Simpson, Mike ID 2nd
NAY   D Rush, Bobby IL 1st
YEA   D Lipinski, Daniel IL 3rd
NAY   D Gutiérrez, Luis IL 4th
NAY   D Quigley, Mike IL 5th
YEA   R Roskam, Peter IL 6th
NAY   D Davis, Danny IL 7th
NAY   R Walsh, Joe IL 8th
NAY   D Schakowsky, Jan IL 9th
YEA   R Dold, Bob IL 10th
YEA   R Kinzinger, Adam IL 11th
YEA   D Costello, Jerry IL 12th
YEA   R Biggert, Judy IL 13th
YEA   R Hultgren, Randy IL 14th
NAY   R Johnson, Timothy IL 15th
YEA   R Manzullo, Donald IL 16th
YEA   R Schilling, Bobby IL 17th
YEA   R Schock, Aaron IL 18th
YEA   R Shimkus, John IL 19th
YEA   D Visclosky, Peter IN 1st
YEA   D Donnelly, Joe IN 2nd
YEA   R Stutzman, Marlin IN 3rd
YEA   R Rokita, Todd IN 4th
NO VOTE   R Burton, Dan IN 5th
YEA   R Pence, Mike IN 6th
NAY   D Carson, André IN 7th
YEA   R Bucshon, Larry IN 8th
YEA   R Young, Todd IN 9th
NAY   R Huelskamp, Tim KS 1st
YEA   R Jenkins, Lynn KS 2nd
YEA   R Yoder, Kevin KS 3rd
YEA   R Pompeo, Mike KS 4th
YEA   R Whitfield, Ed KY 1st
YEA   R Guthrie, Brett KY 2nd
NAY   D Yarmuth, John KY 3rd
NAY   R Massie, Thomas KY 4th
YEA   R Rogers, Hal KY 5th
YEA   D Chandler, Ben KY 6th
YEA   R Scalise, Steve LA 1st
YEA   D Richmond, Cedric LA 2nd
NAY   R Landry, Jeff LA 3rd
YEA   R Fleming, John LA 4th
YEA   R Alexander, Rodney LA 5th
YEA   R Cassidy, Bill LA 6th
YEA   R Boustany, Charles LA 7th
NAY   D Olver, John MA 1st
NAY   D Neal, Richard MA 2nd
NAY   D McGovern, Jim MA 3rd
NAY   D Frank, Barney MA 4th
YEA   D Tsongas, Niki MA 5th
NAY   D Tierney, John MA 6th
NAY   D Markey, Ed MA 7th
NAY   D Capuano, Michael MA 8th
NAY   D Lynch, Stephen MA 9th
YEA   D Keating, William MA 10th
NAY   R Harris, Andy MD 1st
YEA   D Ruppersberger, Dutch MD 2nd
NAY   D Sarbanes, John MD 3rd
NAY   D Edwards, Donna MD 4th
YEA   D Hoyer, Steny MD 5th
YEA   R Bartlett, Roscoe MD 6th
YEA   D Cummings, Elijah MD 7th
NAY   D Van Hollen, Chris MD 8th
NAY   D Pingree, Chellie ME 1st
NAY   D Michaud, Michael ME 2nd
YEA   R Benishek, Dan MI 1st
YEA   R Huizenga, Bill MI 2nd
NAY   R Amash, Justin MI 3rd
YEA   R Camp, Dave MI 4th
YEA   D Kildee, Dale MI 5th
YEA   R Upton, Fred MI 6th
NAY   R Walberg, Timothy MI 7th
YEA   R Rogers, Mike MI 8th
NAY   D Peters, Gary MI 9th
YEA   R Miller, Candice MI 10th
YEA   D Curson, David MI 11th
YEA   D Levin, Sander MI 12th
NAY   D Clarke, Hansen MI 13th
NAY   D Conyers, John MI 14th
YEA   D Dingell, John MI 15th
YEA   D Walz, Timothy MN 1st
YEA   R Kline, John MN 2nd
YEA   R Paulsen, Erik MN 3rd
NAY   D McCollum, Betty MN 4th
NAY   D Ellison, Keith MN 5th
NAY   R Bachmann, Michele MN 6th
YEA   D Peterson, Collin MN 7th
YEA   R Cravaack, Chip MN 8th
YEA   D Clay, William MO 1st
YEA   R Akin, Todd MO 2nd
YEA   D Carnahan, Russ MO 3rd
YEA   R Hartzler, Vicky MO 4th
YEA   D Cleaver, Emanuel MO 5th
YEA   R Graves, Sam MO 6th
YEA   R Long, Billy MO 7th
YEA   R Emerson, Jo Ann MO 8th
YEA   R Luetkemeyer, Blaine MO 9th
YEA   R Nunnelee, Alan MS 1st
YEA   D Thompson, Bennie MS 2nd
YEA   R Harper, Gregg MS 3rd
YEA   R Palazzo, Steven MS 4th
YEA   R Rehberg, Denny MT
North Carolina
YEA   D Butterfield, G.K. NC 1st
YEA   R Ellmers, Renee NC 2nd
NAY   R Jones, Walter NC 3rd
YEA   D Price, David NC 4th
YEA   R Foxx, Virginia NC 5th
YEA   R Coble, Howard NC 6th
YEA   D McIntyre, Mike NC 7th
YEA   D Kissell, Larry NC 8th
YEA   R Myrick, Sue NC 9th
YEA   R McHenry, Patrick NC 10th
YEA   D Shuler, Heath NC 11th
NAY   D Watt, Mel NC 12th
NAY   D Miller, Brad NC 13th
North Dakota
YEA   R Berg, Rick ND
NO VOTE   R Fortenberry, Jeffrey NE 1st
YEA   R Terry, Lee NE 2nd
YEA   R Smith, Adrian NE 3rd
New Hampshire
YEA   R Guinta, Frank NH 1st
YEA   R Bass, Charles NH 2nd
New Jersey
YEA   D Andrews, Rob NJ 1st
YEA   R LoBiondo, Frank NJ 2nd
YEA   R Runyan, Jon NJ 3rd
YEA   R Smith, Chris NJ 4th
YEA   R Garrett, Scott NJ 5th
NAY   D Pallone, Frank NJ 6th
YEA   R Lance, Leonard NJ 7th
YEA   D Pascrell, Bill NJ 8th
YEA   D Rothman, Steven NJ 9th
NAY   D Payne, Donald NJ 10th
YEA   R Frelinghuysen, Rodney NJ 11th
YEA   D Holt, Rush NJ 12th
YEA   D Sires, Albio NJ 13th
New Mexico
YEA   D Heinrich, Martin NM 1st
YEA   R Pearce, Steve NM 2nd
YEA   D Luján, Ben NM 3rd
NO VOTE   D Berkley, Shelley NV 1st
YEA   R Amodei, Mark NV 2nd
YEA   R Heck, Joe NV 3rd
New York
YEA   D Bishop, Timothy NY 1st
YEA   D Israel, Steve NY 2nd
YEA   R King, Pete NY 3rd
YEA   D McCarthy, Carolyn NY 4th
NAY   D Ackerman, Gary NY 5th
YEA   D Meeks, Gregory NY 6th
NAY   D Crowley, Joseph NY 7th
NAY   D Nadler, Jerrold NY 8th
YEA   R Turner, Robert NY 9th
YEA   D Towns, Ed NY 10th
NAY   D Clarke, Yvette NY 11th
NAY   D Velázquez, Nydia NY 12th
YEA   R Grimm, Michael NY 13th
NAY   D Maloney, Carolyn NY 14th
NAY   D Rangel, Charles NY 15th
NAY   D Serrano, José NY 16th
YEA   D Engel, Eliot NY 17th
YEA   D Lowey, Nita NY 18th


YEA   R Hayworth, Nan NY 19th
NAY   R Gibson, Chris NY 20th
NAY   D Tonko, Paul NY 21st
NAY   D Hinchey, Maurice NY 22nd
YEA   D Owens, William NY 23rd
YEA   R Hanna, Richard NY 24th
YEA   R Buerkle, Ann Marie NY 25th
YEA   D Hochul, Kathleen NY 26th
YEA   D Higgins, Brian NY 27th
NAY   D Slaughter, Louise NY 28th
YEA   R Reed, Tom NY 29th
YEA   R Chabot, Steve OH 1st
YEA   R Schmidt, Jean OH 2nd
YEA   R Turner, Michael OH 3rd
YEA   R Jordan, Jim OH 4th
YEA   R Latta, Robert OH 5th
YEA   R Johnson, Bill OH 6th
YEA   R Austria, Steve OH 7th
YEA   D Kaptur, Marcy OH 9th
NAY   D Kucinich, Dennis OH 10th
YEA   D Fudge, Marcia OH 11th
YEA   R Tiberi, Pat OH 12th
YEA   D Sutton, Betty OH 13th
YEA   R LaTourette, Steven OH 14th
YEA   R Stivers, Steve OH 15th
YEA   R Renacci, Jim OH 16th
YEA   D Ryan, Timothy OH 17th
YEA   R Gibbs, Bob OH 18th
YEA   R Sullivan, John OK 1st
YEA   D Boren, Dan OK 2nd
YEA   R Lucas, Frank OK 3rd
YEA   R Cole, Tom OK 4th
YEA   R Lankford, James OK 5th
YEA   D Bonamici, Suzanne OR 1st
YEA   R Walden, Greg OR 2nd
NAY   D Blumenauer, Earl OR 3rd
YEA   D DeFazio, Peter OR 4th
YEA   D Schrader, Kurt OR 5th
YEA   D Brady, Robert PA 1st
NAY   D Fattah, Chaka PA 2nd
YEA   R Kelly, Mike PA 3rd
YEA   D Altmire, Jason PA 4th
YEA   R Thompson, Glenn PA 5th
YEA   R Gerlach, Jim PA 6th
YEA   R Meehan, Patrick PA 7th
YEA   R Fitzpatrick, Michael PA 8th
YEA   R Shuster, Bill PA 9th
YEA   R Marino, Thomas PA 10th
YEA   R Barletta, Lou PA 11th
YEA   D Critz, Mark PA 12th
YEA   D Schwartz, Allyson PA 13th
NAY   D Doyle, Mike PA 14th
YEA   R Dent, Charles PA 15th
YEA   R Pitts, Joseph PA 16th
YEA   D Holden, Tim PA 17th
YEA   R Murphy, Tim PA 18th
YEA   R Platts, Todd PA 19th
Rhode Island
YEA   D Cicilline, David RI 1st
YEA   D Langevin, Jim RI 2nd
South Carolina
YEA   R Scott, Tim SC 1st
YEA   R Wilson, Joe SC 2nd
YEA   R Duncan, Jeff SC 3rd
YEA   R Gowdy, Trey SC 4th
YEA   R Mulvaney, Mick SC 5th
YEA   D Clyburn, Jim SC 6th
South Dakota
YEA   R Noem, Kristi SD
NAY   R Roe, Phil TN 1st
NAY   R Duncan, John TN 2nd
YEA   R Fleischmann, Chuck TN 3rd
NAY   R DesJarlais, Scott TN 4th
YEA   D Cooper, Jim TN 5th
YEA   R Black, Diane TN 6th
YEA   R Blackburn, Marsha TN 7th
YEA   R Fincher, Stephen TN 8th
NAY   D Cohen, Steve TN 9th
YEA   R Gohmert, Louis TX 1st
YEA   R Poe, Ted TX 2nd
NO VOTE   R Johnson, Sam TX 3rd
NAY   R Hall, Ralph TX 4th
YEA   R Hensarling, Jeb TX 5th
YEA   R Barton, Joe TX 6th
NO VOTE   R Culberson, John TX 7th
YEA   R Brady, Kevin TX 8th
YEA   D Green, Al TX 9th
YEA   R McCaul, Michael TX 10th
YEA   R Conaway, Michael TX 11th
YEA   R Granger, Kay TX 12th
YEA   R Thornberry, Mac TX 13th
NAY   R Paul, Ron TX 14th
YEA   D Hinojosa, Rubén TX 15th
NO VOTE   D Reyes, Silvestre TX 16th
YEA   R Flores, Bill TX 17th
YEA   D Jackson-Lee, Sheila TX 18th
YEA   R Neugebauer, Randy TX 19th
YEA   D Gonzalez, Charles TX 20th
YEA   R Smith, Lamar TX 21st
YEA   R Olson, Pete TX 22nd
YEA   R Canseco, Quico TX 23rd
NAY   R Marchant, Kenny TX 24th
YEA   D Doggett, Lloyd TX 25th
YEA   R Burgess, Michael TX 26th
YEA   R Farenthold, Blake TX 27th
YEA   D Cuellar, Henry TX 28th
YEA   D Green, Gene TX 29th
YEA   D Johnson, Eddie TX 30th
YEA   R Carter, John TX 31st
YEA   R Sessions, Pete TX 32nd
YEA   R Bishop, Rob UT 1st
YEA   D Matheson, Jim UT 2nd
YEA   R Chaffetz, Jason UT 3rd
YEA   R Wittman, Rob VA 1st
YEA   R Rigell, Scott VA 2nd
YEA   D Scott, Bobby VA 3rd
YEA   R Forbes, Randy VA 4th
YEA   R Hurt, Robert VA 5th
YEA   R Goodlatte, Bob VA 6th
YEA   R Cantor, Eric VA 7th
YEA   D Moran, Jim VA 8th
NAY   R Griffith, Morgan VA 9th
YEA   R Wolf, Frank VA 10th
YEA   D Connolly, Gerald VA 11th
NAY   D Welch, Peter VT
YEA   D DelBene, Suzan WA 1st
YEA   D Larsen, Rick WA 2nd
YEA   R Herrera Beutler, Jaime WA 3rd
YEA   R Hastings, Doc WA 4th
YEA   R McMorris Rodgers, Cathy WA 5th
YEA   D Dicks, Norm WA 6th
NAY   D McDermott, Jim WA 7th
YEA   R Reichert, Dave WA 8th
YEA   D Smith, Adam WA 9th
YEA   R Ryan, Paul WI 1st
NAY   D Baldwin, Tammy WI 2nd
NAY   D Kind, Ron WI 3rd
NAY   D Moore, Gwen WI 4th
NAY   R Sensenbrenner, James WI 5th
YEA   R Petri, Tom WI 6th
YEA   R Duffy, Sean WI 7th
NAY   R Ribble, Reid WI 8th
West Virginia
YEA   R McKinley, David WV 1st
YEA   R Capito, Shelley WV 2nd
YEA   D Rahall, Nick WV 3rd
NAY   R Lummis, Cynthia WY