Tag Archives: Senate

Gunnin’ For The Right To Bear Arms

Well readers, it’s been just over a week since the senseless murder of some 49 innocents at a nightclub in Orlando. In the days that have followed we’ve seen the same, tired reactions. Conservatives blame liberals and Muslims. Liberals hurl accusations at conservatives. On the ground, people suffer in a state of fear, confusion, and pent up indignation and nothing really gets done.

Or at least, that’s how things have been.

After this, the deadliest mass-shooting in US history, there may be hope at long last for some cooperation. Both sides of the issue are coming together to openly discuss solutions for preventing such tragedies. And folks, that is something to be grateful for.

The solution they’ve come up with so far?

That’s a different story.

Chances are that you’ve probably heard of Senator Chuck Murphy’s 14-hour filibuster on June 15th– the representative of Connecticut staunchly refusing to yield the floor until legislators agreed to vote on gun control measures. Among the measures agreed to be voted is the banning of the sale of guns and explosives to anyone on the terrorist watchlist- a measure that’s been heartily endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats, making it perhaps some the first gun control legislation in a long, long time with a good chance of passing.

And I could not be more pissed about it. Continue reading

Shame Day: Sex, Money and the Canadian Senate

What do the following senators Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy have in common?

They are both under scrutiny for wasting government money. Wallin, for charging 300,000 dollars of travel expenses to the Canadian Government under what she claims to have been “an accounting error” and Duffy for billing “both the Senate and the Conservative Party on the days that he campaigned for the Tory candidates.

But that’s not all. Continue reading

Shame Day: The Abortion Debate

I’ve seen both sides of this debate.

I grew up in a devotedly pro-life home. I was taught pro-life apologetics and arguments (largely from books by Peter Kreeft [go read The Unaborted Socrates]). In spite of that, my study of the development of life and my debates with pro-choicers led me eventually to cross the line. I concluded that if personhood ends with the cessation of brain activity, surely it must begin with it as well.

All that’s to say I’ve had first hand experience with both sides of the highly contentious issue.

But I’m not here to talk about abortion. I’m hear to shine the spotlight on the supreme nitwits who scream the loudest from both sides of the argument. Let’s break it down here. Continue reading

Shame Day: Africa Will Always Be Poor (And Other Racist ****)

First off, CISPA, passed by Congress last Friday, is headed to the floor of the Senate. If you haven’t already, get in contact with your senators and send them this message:

Now back to business.

I’ve been meaning to take a crack at this issue for a while. In fact, I’ve even tried a few times to actually write a post on it- I just couldn’t quite find the words to illustrate the problem succinctly.

Then, earlier today, I came across this image [click to open up larger in a new window]:

Continue reading

Destroy CISPA

The vast majority of my generation was probably too young to remember the Patriot Act even being signed into existence. Hailed as a necessary evil in the so-called “war on terror,” this piece of legislation made sweeping attacks on the privacy of the people it was supposedly meant to protect. Rather than repeal the Orwellian hallmarks of the Bush administration, Obama expanded them.

Every time some new attack on our privacy is proposed, I find myself hoping that this, this, will be the line.

So far I’ve been hoping in vain. Continue reading

Fame Day: Rand Paul

Only got four hours of sleep last night, so bear with me if this isn’t the epitome of proper grammar or decent, coherent writing. It took me almost half a minute to remember the word “coherent.”

The topic for today was brought to me by my good friend Stew, and forced me to look up the definition to the word “filibuster.” Since I’m going to assume that at least a few people have, like me, lived their lives without ever having to read, hear, or use it themselves, it is as follows:

fil·i·bus·ter (noun):

the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority.

b. an exceptionally long speech, as one lasting for a day or days, or a series of such speeches to accomplish this purpose.

c. a member of a legislature who makes such a speech.

Basically, in layman’s terms, a filibuster is a whole lot of talking to make sure that some sort of law or policy doesn’t pass [or the person who does this]. Enter filibuster, and subject of today’s Fame Day, Rand Paul.


Senator Rand Paul conducted a filibuster [I’m going to be using that word a lot] on the Senate floor to prolong or prevent the CIA nomination of John Brennan. He did this to protest the president’s drone policy, i.e. Obama not eliminating the possibility of military drones being used in the US.

This man began his filibuster yesterday at roughly 12 pm EST, and he kept on going for almost 13 hours. Not only that, but in spite of coming prepared with binders of notes he barely looked at them. He ended his interminable talk with a touch of humour, saying “I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but I’ve discovered that there are some limits to filibustering and I’m going to have to go take care of one of those in a few minutes here.”

Let that sink in for a bit. Rand Paul stood and talked for almost 13 hours. As quoted from the article I linked to above, “As the person leading the filibuster, Paul was forbidden from ever leaving the floor, lest he lose control of the debate.

Rand Paul went without food, water, or the means to relieve himself for over half a day. He did this to protest a very frightening reality, that of the American military using drones on American soil. During the speech he voiced his concern with that, saying “When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that.”

I end this post with another quote from the speech highlighting the fervour that this man has for human rights in America, and his unwavering dedication to uphold them:

“I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”