Democratic Congressman Leads Effort to Restore DC Gun Rights

Mississippi's Clarion-Ledger http://www.clarionledger.com reports today that Democratic Congressman Travis Childers is sponsoring a bill to restore gun rights in the District of Columbia.

Ana Radelat of the Clarion-Ledger's Washington Bureau writes:

To the dismay of the Washington, D.C., police chief and others who are trying to limit gun ownership in the nation's capital, Rep. Travis Childers is pressing legislation that would rollback restrictions.

Childers, a Democrat from Prentiss County, won a special election in May to represent the 1st District. He hopes to offer his bill this week as an amendment to a much narrower bill sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.

Childers says his legislation is needed to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in June that the city's wide-ranging gun ban violates the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

While I do not condone Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional representation, I do support the Supreme Court's ruling," Childers said in a statement. "D.C. city officials have since enacted gun control laws that defy this ruling, and I am committed to making sure that American citizens retain the ability to defend themselves, as it is laid out in the Constitution."

"The debate is about how far Congress should go to require Washington, D.C., to comply with the Supreme Court ruling."

Norton's bill would require the city government to establish ways for its residents to lawfully purchase and carry guns within 180 days of becoming law but would not dictate how to do so.

Childers' bill is much more detailed. It would allow District of Columbia residents to own a wide variety of handguns and rifles - only sawed-off rifles, machine guns and short-barreled rifles would be banned.

It also would remove criminal penalties for anyone owning an unregistered gun.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/NEWS/809140368/1001/news

The following is the next of the Second Amendment Enforced Act (H.R. 6691) introduced by Congressman Childers:


110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6691
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 31, 2008

Mr. CHILDERS (for himself, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. CAZAYOUX, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. ROSS, Mr. TANNER, Mr. STUPAK, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Mr. ELLSWORTH, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. BOYD of Florida, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. SHULER, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. HILL, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. SPACE, Mr. BARROW, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. BOREN, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HAYES, Mr. SALI, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. COOPER, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BERRY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. MAHONEY of Florida, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. HODES, Mr. SESSIONS, and Ms. SHEA-PORTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Second Amendment Enforcement Act’.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) As the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have recognized, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.
(6) Officials of the District of Columbia have indicated their intention to continue to unduly restrict lawful firearm possession and use by citizens of the District.
(7) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia’s law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.
SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL’S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.
Section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia’, approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.’.
SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.
(a) In General- Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
‘(10) ‘Machine gun’ means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or readily restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth Criminal Penalties- Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
‘(c) ‘Machine gun’, as used in this Act, has the meaning given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.’.
SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Repeal of Requirement-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ‘any firearm, unless’ and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: ‘any firearm described in subsection (c).’.
(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following:
‘(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
‘(2) A machine gun.
‘(3) A short-barreled rifle.’.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ‘Registration requirements’ and inserting ‘Firearm Possession’.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations Act- The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended as follows:
(1) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.
(2) Section 101 (sec. 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (13).
(3) Section 401 (sec. 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘the District;’ and all that follows and inserting the following: ‘the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully possessed under this Act.’; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘which are unregisterable under section 202’ and inserting ‘which are prohibited under section 201’.
(4) Section 402 (sec. 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘Any person eligible to register a firearm’ and all that follows through ‘such business,’ and inserting the following: ‘Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code,’; and
(B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
‘(1) The applicant’s name;’.
(5) Section 403(b) (sec. 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ‘registration certificate’ and inserting ‘dealer’s license’.
(6) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7-2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm,’;
(B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking ‘holding the registration certificate’ and inserting ‘from whom it was received for repair’;
(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ‘and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm’;
(D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ‘registration certificate number or’; and
(E) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E).
(7) Section 406(c) (sec. 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
‘(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a dealer’s license, the licensee or application shall--
‘(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 705; and
‘(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.’.
(8) Section 407(b) (sec. 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ‘would not be eligible’ and all that follows and inserting ‘is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.’.
(9) Section 502 (sec. 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
‘(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a licensed dealer.’;
(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows
‘(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law.’;
(C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(D) by striking subsection (e).
(10) Section 704 (sec. 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘any registration certificate or’ and inserting ‘a’; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘registration certificate,’.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments- Section 2(4) of the Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 1992 (sec. 7-2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘or ignoring proof of the purchaser’s residence in the District of Columbia’; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘registration and’.
SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.
Section 601(3) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01(3), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ‘is the holder of the valid registration certificate for’ and inserting ‘owns’.
SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.
Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
SEC. 8. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
(a) In General- Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ‘that:’ and all that follows through ‘(1) A’ and inserting ‘that a’; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN ONE’S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.
Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ‘a pistol,’ and inserting the following: ‘except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a pistol,’; and
(2) by striking ‘except that:’ and all that follows through ‘(2) If the violation’ and inserting ‘except that if the violation’.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING PURCHASES OF FIREARMS BY DISTRICT RESIDENTS.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by inserting after ‘other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located’ the following: ‘, or to the sale or delivery of a handgun to a resident of the District of Columbia by a licensee whose place of business is located in Maryland or Virginia,’.

http://www.childers.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=52

McCain wants to tax health benefits for working families

Writing in the Time/CNN blog Swampland, Joe Klein points out that John McCain wants to tax our health insurance benefits while opposing any increase in taxes on oil companies. Is any additional proof needed that the McCain-Palin ticket is no friend of working families ?

Klein writes:

John McCain wants to tax your employer-provided health care benefits. He wants to replace those benefits with an insufficient tax credit--$2500 for individuals and $5000 for families (the average cost per family for health insurance is $12000).
There is a positive, progressive tax aspect to this: wealthier people should have to pay for health insurance themselves, without tax breaks from the federal government.

But make no mistake: this plan will do little or nothing for those who do not have insurance now--unless they are young and healthy--and it may well hurt a fair number of workers, especially unionized workers, who get gold-plated benefits from their employers.

It will certainly do nothing for families with members who have pre-existing conditions or children with special needs--because it makes no provision to regulate the insurers, forcing them to cover all comers at "community" rates that don't discriminate against the people who need health insurance most.

It is amazing to me that the Obama campaign has let things go this far without pointing out that McCain--who opposes the energy bill because it would increase taxes on oil companies--is actually proposing a tax increase on health care benefits for American workers. But that is precisely what the Senator from Arizona is doing.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/mccains_health_care_tax_increa.html

Workers Need Unemployment Insurance Extension

Writing in the AFL-CIO's NOW blog, Mike Hall discusses the need for extension of jobless benefits in states with high employment as John McCain continues to insist that the economy is running smoothly and only more "free trade" and tax cuts for the rich is needed to expand prosperity.

With the nation’s unemployment rate the worst in five years and tens of thousands of U.S. jobs vanishing each month, jobless workers are finding it tougher and tougher to secure new work. Some 800,000 will run out of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits in October—1.1 million by the end of the year—unless the U.S. Congress passes and the president signs legislation extending benefits.

A bill to extend UI benefits for seven weeks—plus another 13 weeks for jobless workers in states with high unemployment rates—was introduced this week by Reps. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) Said McDermott:

With the unemployment rate nationally now above 6 percent, and our economy staggering under the weight of years of failed economic policies, it is time for the President and Republican Party to join us in urgently meeting the needs of the American people.

Earlier this year as the economy continued to worsen and joblessness grow, President Bush and Sen. John McCain opposed aiding jobless workers as part of an economic stimulus package. It wasn’t until the end of June, with economic bad news growing, that Bush relented and signed a UI extension. But more than 1 million jobless workers will soon run out of those benefits.

Meanwhile, McCain continues to operate under the delusion that the economy is doing just fine. He repeatedly has said the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.” http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/09/11/its-the-economy-stupid-not-lipstick/

Now Congress is considering a second stimulus package, and the Rangel/McDermott bill could be folded into the package. McCain does not endorse a second stimulus package, but it is backed by Sen. Barack Obama. Meanwhile, a Bush administration spokesman said there is no need for a second stimulus package because the first stimulus plan was having the intended impact (like the decline in retail sales in August, a time when back-to-school shopping typically gives sales a boost?).

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says it’s time to quickly pass a stimulus package to “spur and stabilize our nation’s entire sinking economy” that, along with extended UI benefits, includes:

Fiscal relief for states and cities.
Expanded funding for food stamps.
Job creation by funding ready-to-go infrastructure projects, including repairing schools, roads and bridges.
http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/09/12/house-considers-unemployment-insurance-extension/

Documentary 'Border" Reveals Rarely Seen Side of Illegal Immigration

From WiredPRNews:

Documentary Border shows human cost of human smugglers who rape and enslave those seeking a better life in the US as limited enforcement and porous borders enable the tragedy.

Fort Worth, TX (WiredPRNews.com)—The shocking documentary ‘Border’ shows how a porous border and limited enforcement enables human smugglers and drug traffickers to extort, rape, murder and humiliate those seeking a better life in the United States.

Destroying the notion that those who want to secure the border are racist xenophobic bigots, filmmaker Chris Burgard shows how the predominantly Hispanic property owners and law enforcement personnel on US side of the border are fighting a war against drug cartels that move people and drugs across the unforgiving and desolate desert terrain.

Contrary to the talking points of the so-called ‘immigrants rights’ groups, Burgard shows how illegal immigrants are sometimes locked into indentured servitude to the smugglers who’ve delivered them to safe houses in cities like Tucson and Phoenix. The smugglers, commonly known as ‘Coyotes,’ threaten to kill the families of the newly arrived immigrants if they don’t pay extortion money. Sometimes, this servitude can go on for years.

Burgard, a former bull rider and native of Wisconsin, decided to make the documentary after working with a group of laborers, who turned out to be illegal aliens. Shocked by the stories the immigrants told about their journey into the US, Burgard discovered that Coyotes would often sexually assault women in the migrant groups, and display the victim’s undergarments on ‘rape trees’ near the border. This sick display is a competition that human traffickers engage in to one-up each other.

The lack of a solid, border fence and limited enforcement actually contribute to the carnage that these smugglers have wrought. In the sector that Burgard covers in the film, border ranchers routinely talk about finding corpses of illegal immigrants on their vast properties. Some have died at the hands of the Coyotes while others die of dehydration after walking for days in the desert.

The Mexican government may be complicit in helping drug cartels smuggle aliens and terrorists into the US. An example Burgard cites is that para-military groups have violated US sovereignty and held American border patrol agents at gunpoint, preventing them from stopping the smugglers.

http://www.bordermovie.com/

Democrats for Nuclear Power

It is time for the Democratic Party to once again support nuclear power which has a proven track record as a safe and reliable source of energy. Democrats like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy were strong backers of the peaceful use of atomic energy. Some party leaders like Democratic House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn endorse nuclear power http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/story/784306.html but many prominent Democrats still fear the issue or oppose nukes. Unfortunately, this year's Democratic Party platform on energy does not even mention nuclear power and Barack Obama is reluctant to fully embrace nukes due to pressure from hard-line environmentalists.

Our party leaders need to recognize that times have changed. Public support is growing for expanded nuclear and even a number of environmental activists have jumped on the atomic bandwagon. Stewart Brand (founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue) and Dr. Patrick Moore (organizer of Greenpeace) are now prominent advocates for nuclear power.

A bold new voice in our party is found within Democrats for Nuclear Power. I welcome the pro-nuclear Democrats to the blogosphere http://www.pronucleardemocrats.blogspot.com and wanted to share their opening statement with our readers:

Nuclear power is a divisive issue among Americans and especially Democrats, who are often lumped all into the same category as "liberal environmentalists" by the media or Republican opponents.

In the spectrum of political beliefs, America is not solely defined by "Democrat" or "Republican". We don't not all march to the scripted party policies. We each have a right and duty as good citizens to examine the facts and make decisions based on good reason. A person need not know everything or be an expert to make a decision. Knowing the essentials is important and getting a clear big picture of energy problems should be enough.

That said, all the good arguments in the world can be made in favor of nuclear power and those who are in opposition will always find a reason to not be satisfied. The arguments become circular and often more about egos than reality. It has been said that a person cannot be reasoned with to change their position, if that person has come to their position without reason.

Energy independence and pollution control is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Energy is the basis for our civilization and drives the economy forward. The approach to the problems this presents us with are primarily scientific / engineering, economic and political.

Please set your political affiliations aside for the moment and ask yourself if you have an open mind and are willing to change it given the evidence and information about nuclear energy? I was once opposed to nuclear power. Then I examined the information, economics and relative risks of the technology and I changed my mind. Are you willing to be fair, listen, and possibly change yours?

The time is now to be realistic about our energy options. If the scientific and economic analysis proves one plan is better than another considering all relative risks, why would we not choose the most beneficial options?

It is disingenuous to say that nuclear is on the table, yet stonewall the progress with obstacles that already have solutions or at least solutions in development.

Are we ambitious to solve our energy problems or will this be yet another titanic challenge that America does not have the will to overcome? We can accomplish far more if we can agree to solve these problems rather than use them as an excuse not to go forward with progress.

http://pronucleardemocrats.blogspot.com/2008/09/it-is-time-to-be-realistic-fair-and.html

Jack Davis on Saving American Jobs, Standing Up to Special lnterests

Democratic Congressional candidate Jack Davis (NY D-26) tells it like it is on the campaign trail. Below is a recent speech by Davis about the state of the American economy:

Good Morning. Thank you for coming.

Last night, John McCain spoke at the Republican National Convention, but there was nothing in his remarks that should give hope to the millions of Americans who are living check to check, or struggling to find good paying jobs.

John McCain is an unrepentant free trader. He once said “I don’t care how many jobs you outsource.” Well, I do, and there are a lot of other people in this region who know that free trade is a job killer and has destroyed our economy.

John McCain has called himself the biggest booster of free trade. Well I am the biggest booster of working men and women, and that’s why I am running for Congress.

The question before voters in this Congressional Election is whether you want Chris Lee, the handpicked replacement of Tom Reynolds and the Republican establishment, or someone with the independence to go to Washington and represent the people and not the special interest groups that out source our jobs.

Chris Lee supports John McCain and his policies. Chris Lee and John McCain’s idea of prosperity is the highest gas prices in history and a mortgage crisis that threatens too many families.

We don’t need more of the same policies that have given us a recession and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Never have we seen a clearer divide between political rhetoric and hard economic reality. Last night John McCain offered Americans hoping and working for a better economy more of the same. Today we got it: The Department of Labor announced that unemployment has reached 6.1 percent – the highest it has been in five years.

That is wrong.

We need Democrats in the White House and Congress who will put your families first.

John McCain and Chris Lee know that free trade is not free and they must hear this message, not just from me, but from you. The price paid by working men and women in this country is just too high.

There are too many men and women who have to explain to their families that they lost their job because it was cheaper to do the work in China. To many young people have had to leave their families behind to seek work elsewhere; and we are all paying the price at the pump and in grocery stores.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

I believe the solution to these problems is good paying jobs. With more good paying jobs, our taxes would be lower, Social Security would be solvent, and our communities would be stronger and safer than ever before.

But the lobbyists and special interests in Washington are buying politicians.

We go to war, and they outsource contracts for equipment and systems to foreign nations.

We talk about building a border fence, and part of it is made in China.

We talk about government health care for people who need it, but there are 13 health care lobbyists for every Member of Congress. Nothing gets done to make health care more affordable or accessible for working men and women and retirees.

The special interest groups, multinational corporations and their Washington lawyers and lobbyists have too much power. Their campaign contributions buy them access and influence.

Well, their money does not impress me, and I will not take a dime. I have pledged to work for a dollar a year. I cannot be bought.

I am personally financing my campaign with 3 million dollars. I am refusing special interest money in my campaign and challenged Chris Lee to do the same.

So far, he has failed to meet that challenge. So allow me to offer yet another challenge.

Chris, join me in standing against free trade. Join me in standing up to the special interests, and join me in standing up for the American working men, women, and retirees.

Voters have a choice in November, Chris, and so do you. Will you stand with your party and the failed Bush/McCain free trade policies, or will you join with me and the Democrats in opposing the free trade policies that are killing our economy?

Buffalo is now the third poorest large city in the U.S.

You deserve new leadership in Washington - leadership that fights for workers and retirees, not for the special interests that outsource our jobs.

I am the only candidate with a lifetime of creating jobs, balancing budgets and getting things done for working men and women, and that won’t change when I go to Washington.

I believe we can turn things around, because I believe in America.

I'm an optimist, but I know I cannot win this fight alone. I won't ask you for your money, but I am asking for your vote and your ideas.

I ask you to join this campaign to change Washington, and most of all ¬ I need you - all of you - to join the fight to Save American Jobs, farms, and industries.

Thanks for coming now let’s get to work.

http://jackdavis.org/

Catholics for Obama-Biden

I just found a great resource for Catholic Democrats or to share with our Catholic friends. The following is from the website of Catholics for Obama-Biden:

"We are members of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States who are supporting the campaign of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (a Catholic) to be the next President and Vice President of the United States -- and urging others of our faith to do the same. We are real, honest-to-goodness, practicing Catholics who embrace and call attention to Catholic Social Teaching, which the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops describes as "wisdom about building a just society and living lives of holiness amidst the challenges of modern society."

"We hope you'll spend time reviewing all of the material housed or linked from here. But if you read just two documents, please make them the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship http://www.romancatholicsforobama.com/forming.html -- which explains why "there may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other grave reasons" -- and Barack Obama's Blueprint for Change http://www.romancatholicsforobama.com/blueprint.html, which outlines all of Senator Obama's positions and is, we think, reflective of why he is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook."

"On this website, we have collected and linked to documents from the Church and from Church authorities that reflect on the importance of civic participation motivated by all of the principles of Catholic Social Teaching: Life and Dignity of the Human Person; Call to Family, Community, and Participation; Rights and Responsibilities; Option for the Poor and Vulnerable; The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers; Solidarity; and Care for God's Creation."

"Even though we do not agree with all of Senator Obama's positions, we believe that he is the best candidate for President. He is able to inspire and appeal not only to committed Democrats, but to independents and Republicans too. He has a way of bringing people together that can only help our country as well as our country's relationship with the rest of the world. We desperately need a President who will give voice to our better angels. Senator Obama resists succumbing to partisan or divisive rhetoric and will look for common ground in addressing some of the most pressing needs of our time -- among them alleviating poverty, protecting the environment, making peace and, we believe, creating a culture of life."

"We know that for many Roman Catholics, the call to embrace a culture of life often leaves us with a voting dilemma, as it is the rare candidate who adopts all of the positions that would best lead to such a culture. We acknowledge that Senator Obama's position on abortion is in conflict with the vision of the Church. Among other documents, we hope you will read and contemplate a letter from the Archbishop of Denver, excerpted below*:

"So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can't, and I won't. But I do know some serious Catholics -- people whom I admire -- who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don't keep quiet about it; they don't give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite -- not because of -- their 'pro-choice' views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a 'proportionate' reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."

"After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that -- and because of his other outstanding qualities -- despite our disagreements with him in specific areas."

"We invite you to join us in supporting Barack Obama for President -- Yes, We Can! A listserv with many active members is hosted by barackobama.com (the list's home page can be found here). Between now and Election Day, we hope you will spend some reflective time on our website. Here you can learn about Catholic Social Teaching, about the U.S. Bishops' advice for incorporating it into voting, about where Senator Obama stands on the issues and about how he himself has described the faith that guides him."

http://www.romancatholicsforobama.com/