H.R. 6: The American Dream and Promise Act

The American Dream and Promise Act, which was introduced in March and passed earlier this month, would protect young immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children — known as Dreamers — and establish a path to citizenship for more than 2 million immigrants without legal status.

The bill would grant permanent residency with a path to citizenship to more than 2 million immigrants who fall into three categories: Dreamers and some recipients of the temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure programs.

A few good reasons to v**e against it ....

Proponents of the Act suggest this legislation is needed to close the wage gap between working men and
women, arguing that the gap is evidence of persistent g****r-based discrimination.
Yet, this assertion is misleading. Research shows that the gap arises out of a multitude
of factors that reflect the individual preferences of men and women, such as occupational
choice, time spent at work, and non-wage benefits, among others.

Moreover, if passed, the Paycheck Fairness Act would have widespread implications
for businesses and their employees, discouraging job creation and economic growth. In
particular, the Act would:
● Expose employers to far greater liability and potentially frivolous lawsuits
● Burden employers with more regulations and paperwork
● Vastly expand the role of government in employers’ compensation decisions
● Discourage flexible working arrangements

Women deserve e******y in the workplace. The Paycheck Fairness Act, however, sets
out to solve a non-existent problem based on a flawed interpretation of a statistic. Instead of
advancing women’s interests, the Act would have unintended consequences which would hurt
businesses, workers, and the economy, ultimately leaving women with worsened employment
prospects.

There are also good reasons to v**e against "The American Dream and Promise Act"

1. It reduces the benefits of legal immigration.
If people can come to the United States illegally and potentially receive permanent residency status, then what is the benefit of going through the costs and regulations of legally immigrating? By offering a preferential status to any i*****l i*******t, even if they were brought here as a child, then it lessens the meaning of legal immigration.

2. It could increase i*****l i*********n.
If families know that their young children may qualify for permanent residency one day, then they may illegally immigrate to the US to receive that specific benefit. This would create a potential increase of i*****l i*********n along all borders, making it difficult to secure communities and private property because of the population influx changes that would be occurring.

3. It removes resources from citizens and legal immigrants.
Dreamers have benefited from public education opportunities as children. They have taken advantage of community resources that are available, like food bank programs. Although everyone has a basic right to live, it shouldn’t be at the expense of people who are following the law. I*****l i*********n is a violation of US law, which means those here illegally are taking resources away from those who are complying with expectations.

4. It could take jobs away from legal immigrants and citizens.
Although i*****l i*******ts often take jobs that no one else wants to do, those are still jobs. There are many legal immigrants and citizens of the US who are unemployed and some have been for a long time. By hiring an i*****l i*******t, an employer is taking a job away from a legal immigrant or citizen. The DREAM Act could further encourage this practice.

5. It doesn’t solve the lack of education issues that exist today.
Although more students are graduating from college than ever before, the DREAM Act would require individuals to complete just 2 years of college in its current form. This would mean an associate’s degree at best, which opens only a few more doors compared to a high school diploma. It would also potentially add to the student debt crisis. This means we could still be dealing with a lack of education issue.

6. It could unbalance political systems.
By granting people a path to citizenship, the political systems which are currently established could become destabilized. In communities where many Dreamers live, the changes may only benefit those who supported the DREAM Act.

———————-

It’s true that Obama knew of the Russian’s plans. In retribution for their actions, to date, he increased economic sanctions and warned Putin of more sanctions if he continued his interference.

The big issue Obama faced was that no matter what actions he took against the Russians he was caught between a rock and a hard place. The e******n of 2016 was close at hand. What was known was that the Russians were helping Trump. If Obama took any actions against the Russians, the GOPTPers (like you) would claim he was helping HRC. As a sitting president with integrity - something Trump has none of - Obama didn’t want to look like he was using his p**********l powers to favor any candidate.

And, if you’d be honest, you’d agree with that assessment. However, I have zero doubt that Trump - and you guys - would be the first to complain and raise holy hell if the situation was reversed. After all, to you folks, it’s party before country.

A few good reasons to v**e against it ....

Proponents of the Act suggest this legislation is needed to close the wage gap between working men and
women, arguing that the gap is evidence of persistent g****r-based discrimination.
Yet, this assertion is misleading. Research shows that the gap arises out of a multitude
of factors that reflect the individual preferences of men and women, such as occupational
choice, time spent at work, and non-wage benefits, among others.

Moreover, if passed, the Paycheck Fairness Act would have widespread implications
for businesses and their employees, discouraging job creation and economic growth. In
particular, the Act would:
● Expose employers to far greater liability and potentially frivolous lawsuits
● Burden employers with more regulations and paperwork
● Vastly expand the role of government in employers’ compensation decisions
● Discourage flexible working arrangements

Women deserve e******y in the workplace. The Paycheck Fairness Act, however, sets
out to solve a non-existent problem based on a flawed interpretation of a statistic. Instead of
advancing women’s interests, the Act would have unintended consequences which would hurt
businesses, workers, and the economy, ultimately leaving women with worsened employment
prospects.

H.R. 5: The E******y Act

The E******y Act, which was introduced in March and passed in May, seeks to provide comprehensive anti-discrimination protections for L***Q Americans in employment, education, federal funding, housing, public accommodations and more.

Though eight Republicans v**ed for the measure in the House, many in the GOP have come out against the bill amid conservative concerns about infringement of religious liberty.

“In fact, this bill legalizes discrimination — government imposed top-down discrimination against those with time-honored views of marriage and g****r,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) said on the House floor before the v**e.

From Washington Post, 7/27/19
Lifted mainly from an article by Dana Milbank
I have added some thoughts of my own.

This doesn’t mean he’s a spy, but neither is it a flip accusation. Russia attacked our country in 2016. It is still attacking us today. And, its attacks will intensify in 2020. Yet each time we try to raise our defenses to repel the attack, Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, blocks us from defending ourselves.

Let’s call this what it is: unpatriotic, and maybe treasonous. The Kentucky Republican is, arguably more than any other American, with the possible exception of Trump, doing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bidding. Robert Mueller sat before Congress this week warning that the Russia threat, “...deserves the attention of every American.” He said, “...the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in our e******n is among the most serious...” challenges to American democracy he has ever seen. “They are doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign... ,” he warned. Adding that “...much more needs to be done in order to protect against these intrusions, not just by the Russians but others as well.”

Not three hours after Mueller finished testifying, Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, went to the Senate floor to request unanimous consent to pass legislation requiring p**********l campaigns to report to the FBI any offers of assistance from agents of foreign governments. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) was there to represent her leader’s interests. “I object,” she said.

Mueller: ‘We have underplayed’ Russia's effect on our e******ns.”
Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III also said authorities “...need to move quickly to address...” Russian interference in U.S. e******ns.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) attempted to move a bill that would require campaigns to report to the FBI contributions by foreign nationals. “I object,” said Hyde-Smith.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tried to force action on bipartisan legislation, written with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and supported by Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), protecting lawmakers from foreign cyberattacks. “The majority leader, our colleague from Kentucky, must stop blocking this common-sense legislation and allow this body to better defend itself against foreign hackers,” he said. “I object,” repeated Hyde-Smith.

The next day, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the minority leader, asked for the Senate to pass the Securing America’s Federal E******ns Act, already passed by the House, that would direct $600 million in e******n assistance to states and require backup paper b****ts. McConnell, himself, responded this time, reading from a statement, his chin melting into his chest, his trademark thin smile on his lips, “It’s just a highly partisan bill from the same folks who spent two years hyping up a conspiracy theory about President Trump and Russia,” he said. “Therefore, I object.”

McConnell also objected to another attempt by Blumenthal to pass his bill. Pleaded Schumer: “I would suggest to my friend the majority leader: If he doesn’t like this bill, let’s put another bill on the floor and debate it.”

But, McConnell has blocked all such attempts, including:
A bipartisan bill requiring Facebook, Google and other Internet companies to disclose purchasers of political ads, to identify foreign influence.

A bipartisan bill to ease cooperation between state e******n officials and federal intelligence agencies.

A bipartisan bill imposing sanctions on any entity that attacks a U.S. e******n.

A bipartisan bill with severe new sanctions on Russia for its cybercrimes.

McConnell has prevented them all from being considered — over and over again. This is the same McConnell who, in the summer of 2016, when briefed by the CIA along with other congressional leaders on Russia’s e*******l attacks, questioned the validity of the intelligence and forced a watering down of a warning letter to state officials about the threat, omitting any mention of Russia. That was reminiscent of and equal to Trump choosing the word of Putin over our own intelligence agencies.

No amount of alarms sounded by U.S. authorities — even Republicans, even Trump appointees — moves McConnell.
On Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray — Trump’s FBI director — told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Russians “haven’t been deterred enough” and are “absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our e******ns.”

This year, National Intelligence Director Daniel Coats — Trump’s intelligence director — told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “foreign actors will view the 2020 U.S. e******ns as an opportunity to advance their interests. We expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics.”

And on Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report finding that “Russian activities demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in U.S. v****g infrastructure.”

The committee concluded that “urgent steps” are needed “to replace outdated and vulnerable v****g systems.” (The $380 million offered since 2016 is a pittance compared with the need.) “Despite the expense, cybersecurity needs to become a higher priority for e******n-related infrastructure,” the report concluded.
But one man blocks it all — Mitch McConnell — while offering no alternative of his own.

Presumably he thinks wh**ever influence Russia exerts over U.S. e******ns will benefit him (he’s up for ree******n in 2020) and his party. “Shame on him,” Schumer said on the Senate floor this week.

But, as he’s demonstrated in so many occasions, McConnell has no shame. He is aiding and abetting Putin’s dismantling of Americans’ self-governance. A leader who won’t protect our country from attack is no patriot. If he’s anything, he’s a t*****r to this country, it’s citizens and his own constituents.

———————-

It’s true that Obama knew of the Russian’s plans. In retribution for their actions, to date, he increased economic sanctions and warned Putin of more sanctions if he continued his interference.

The big issue Obama faced was that no matter what actions he took against the Russians he was caught between a rock and a hard place. The e******n of 2016 was close at hand. What was known was that the Russians were helping Trump. If Obama took any actions against the Russians, the GOPTPers (like you) would claim he was helping HRC. As a sitting president with integrity - something Trump has none of - Obama didn’t want to look like he was using his p**********l powers to favor any candidate.

And, if you’d be honest, you’d agree with that assessment. However, I have zero doubt that Trump - and you guys - would be the first to complain and raise holy hell if the situation was reversed. After all, to you folks, it’s party before country.

———————-

It’s true that Obama knew of the Russian’s plans. In retribution for their actions, to date, he increased economic sanctions and warned Putin of more sanctions if he continued his interference.

The big issue Obama faced was that no matter what actions he took against the Russians he was caught between a rock and a hard place. The e******n of 2016 was close at hand. What was known was that the Russians were helping Trump. If Obama took any actions against the Russians, the GOPTPers (like you) would claim he was helping HRC. As a sitting president with integrity - something Trump has none of - Obama didn’t want to look like he was using his p**********l powers to favor any candidate.

And, if you’d be honest, you’d agree with that assessment. However, I have zero doubt that Trump - and you guys - would be the first to complain and raise holy hell if the situation was reversed. After all, to you folks, it’s party before country.