This blog is intended to serve as a record for me to keep tabs on national proposed legislation that I find notable.H

H.R. 5: Equality Act:

This is a very dangerous bill. The verbiage attempts to make it seem that the bill is simply supporting equality for the LGBTQ community. However when one reads the way it is worded it becomes very clear that this is not about simple equality, this is about superiority. This is about elevating one segment of the population to the point where they are beyond reproach, and must always be put ahead of the needs of other segments.

Highlights from HR 5:

  • An explicit and comprehensive solution is needed to address such discrimination, including the full range of remedies available 3 under the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • (18) The right to an impartial jury of one’s 15 peers and the reciprocal right to jury service are 16 fundamental to the free and democratic system of 17 justice in the United States and are based in the 18 Bill of Rights. There is, however, an unfortunate 19 and long-documented history in the United States of 20 attorneys discriminating against LGBT individuals, 21 or those perceived to be LGBT, in jury selection. 22 Failure to bar peremptory challenges based on the 23 actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender 24 identity of an individual not only erodes a fundamental right, duty, and obligation of being a citizen of the United States, but also unfairly creates a sec2 ond class of citizenship for LGBT victims, witnesses, 3 plaintiffs, and defendants.
  • [the above line of legislation indicates that it would be “discrimination” to have an LGBTQ individual judged by anyone who is not LGBTQ?]
  • 19) Numerous studies document the shortage of qualified and available homes for the 437,000 6 youth in the child welfare system and the negative outcomes for the many youth who live in group care as opposed to a loving home or who age out without a permanent family. Although same-sex couples are 7 times more likely to foster or adopt than their different-sex counterparts, many child placing agencies refuse to serve same-sex couples and LGBT individuals. This has resulted in a reduction of the pool of qualified and available homes for youth in the child welfare system who need placement on a temporary or permanent basis. Barring discrimination in foster care and adoption will increase the number of homes available to foster children waiting for foster and adoptive families.
  • [it is not unreasonable to argue that this is a slippery slope that can quickly evolve into forcing agencies to put LGBTQ couples at the front of the line for adoptive/foster care placements, potentially putting children at risk for abuse]
  • ‘‘SEC. 208. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. ‘‘A reference in this title to an establishment— ‘‘(1) shall be construed to include an individual whose operations affect commerce and who is a provider of a good, service, or program; and ‘‘(2) shall not be construed to be limited to a physical facility or place.’’.
  • [this is very concerning, this verbiage is indicates that it is not enough for a store or physical structure to “allow everyone to be included”…the PEOPLE who own the businesses must be “welcoming, in not just the store, but in their lives. this is attempting to dictate through law how people are allowed to feel.]
  • ‘‘SEC. 1107. CLAIMS. ‘‘The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 3 USC) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.’’
  • [this segment of the bill is stating that “religious freedom” cannot be used as an “excuse” to discriminate. Here they are stating: no one else has a right to their own religious views, everyone must put the LGBTQ culture first]

HR 5 needs to be stopped, it puts children in danger, gives one segment of the population more rights and consideration over other segments, attempts to control individuals thoughts and expressions, and seeks to limit and restrict the right to religious freedom.

H.R. 9: Climate Action Now Act

This bill will force capitulation with the Paris Climate Agreement. The population must pay attention to this bill, it will impact the lives of every citizen if it passes.


Notable parts of this bill: This bill would allow 10 years of citizenship benefits to be bestowed on millions of individuals.

  • Included in this act would be those who had applied and been granted DACA; as well as those WHO NEVER BOTHERED TO APPLY OR who applied and WERE NOT GRANTED DACA.
  • In theory this would only be granted to those who meet certain educational requirements and have not been convicted of serious crimes. However, there is an entire section on “lifting conditions” so that any or all of these requirements can be waived.
  • This is will not only apply to those who were brought here as young children. Anyone who came here in the last 4 years and was under 18 when they arrived will be considered. This means that anyone who entered on their own accord at 17 and is now 21 will be applicable. Additionally, it should be noted that the documents used to verify age are very lax in qualifying factors. Birth Certificates are not required as proof of age.
  • This has a segment that specifically allows for those who have been removed since 2017 for being in the US illegally…to reenter and be considered for this program.
  • The bill states that anyone who is a parent of spouse or family member of someone who is here legally ( like a baby born on American soil for instance) cannot be removed if it might cause a hardship to the family members. This offers amnesty to anyone who crosses the border illegally and produces a baby.
  • The Promise portion of the act refers to the individuals covered by Temporary Protected Status. TPS is a program that was meant to offer temporary relief to those in need, it was never meant to be an entrance to citizenship in the US.
  • The Promise segment would allow millions of individuals and their families become instant legal immigrants with all benefits included.

H.R. 656:

Sponsor: Rep. Luis Correa [D-CA-46] (introduced 01/17/2019)

This bill proposes requiring the Attorney General to make grants to non profit organizations to offer legal assistance to “certain aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, DACA, and refugees and for other purposes.”

S RES 124:

  • At first glance this Bill seems more than reasonable. It is written to condemn the terror attacks in New Zealand in March of 2019. Who doesn’t think its okay to condemn killing people…. but when one looks closer at the verbiage it becomes concerning.
  • After a few lines of this Bill it becomes obvious that the legislation is not as much about condemning the killings , it is more about solidifying the idea that certain ideas are not okay.
  • The idea of solidarity of white people, and any desire they may have to see their group prosper and their children thrive is not acceptable to the powers that be.
  • Bills like this demonstrate that those in charge will take tragedies and twist and use them to manipulate and engage in social engineering.
  • Let no tragedy go to waste

S. 166:

  • This is notable because this would result in a federally mandated use of taxpayer funds to be allocated to individuals who are not legal residences in the United States.
  • These funds would be used in-part to defend the illegal act of crossing in the United States illegally.
  • Additionally, these taxpayer funds would be utilized to pay for legal assistance for non citizens who are accused of committing crimes in this country. It is important to keep in mind that many of these crimes are committed against United States citizens

Sponsor: Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC] (1/16/19)

This legislation proposes to provide “Conditional Residence to certain long-term residents who entered the United States as children.”

  • This legislation is DACA expanded to also include certain additions of border security
  • The addition of border security provided in this bill is weak, it is merely throwing a bone to those who would like to retain US sovereignty, while seemingly allowing almost anyone to enter and stay in the US at anytime.
  • I would support the prior statement by section (3): REMOVAL STAYED WHILE APPLICATION PENDING.—The Secretary may not remove an alien from the United States who appears prima facie eligible for provisional protected presence while the alien’s application for provisional protected presence is pending.
  • This means that anyone who applies for this program is eligible to stay while they work through the application process in the system
  • This is a problem because of the following verbiage in sections (4):
    ALIENS NOT IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION.—An alien who is not in immigration detention, but who is in removal proceedings, is the subject of a final removal order, or is the subject of a voluntary departure order, may apply for provisional protected presence under this section if the alien appears prima facie eligible for provisional protected presence.
  • This indicates that any illegal alien who is in the process of deportation must be given the opportunity to apply for this DACA program. This seems to counteract the program itself, which states that the program would be limited to only those who were here at a certain time and of certain circumstances.
  • ALIENS IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION.—The Secretary shall provide any alien in immigration detention, including any alien who is in removal proceedings, is the subject of a final removal order, or is the subject of a voluntary departure order, who appears prima facie eligible for provisional protected presence, upon request, with a reasonable opportunity to apply for provisional protected presence under this section.
  • This prior mentioned section in line (5) indicates that even those being held in detention must have the program made available to them. Again this is problematic because if an alien is in detention it is highly unlikely that they have been present in the US since 2012 which is an original requirement of DACA.

S. 567:

Sponsor: Sen. Ted Cruz [ R- TX] (2/26//2019)

A bill clarifying that it is United States policy to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

  • This is notable because I would argue that the United States should not be taking a side in a conflict that in no way involves the US. Why would the US declare that Israel has ownership to land that is currently the source of controversy? Why would the US side with a one state solution in favor of Israel? I would argue this is not a conflict that we have any stake in, and there should be no resolution in our country’s congress that takes a side in this international conflict of other countries.

S. 238:

Sponsor: Senator Marco Rubio [R- FL] ( 1/28/2019)

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to monitor and combat anti-Semitism globally, and for other purposes.

  • This seems as though it is an overreach for the US to “monitor anti-semitism globally”. Why would the US be responsible for monitoring any sort of suspected hatred of any group globally?

H.R 223:

Sponsor : Nydia M. Velazquez [D- NY] (1/3/2019)

  • This bill proposes to allocate funding to “combat hate crimes and assist victims of such acts”
  • The issue I take with this bill is that the evidence it is based on is false. This bill presents data that is twisted and purposely vague.
  • This verbiage asserts that 56.9 % of all hate crimes were motivated by race. It then goes on to say that 9.4 % of these crimes were anti- latino and 3.3 were anti- Asian. It then goes on to state that ” hate crimes against African Americans have seen a dramatic increase over the years, but it only offers us the numbers for a very specific subset of the population ( the African American population in LA) not the population as a whole. And the bill neglects to state the numbers for hate crimes committed against white individuals based on their race. The bill also neglects to address that according to FBI statistics 21 % of offenders were African American. And 64% of offenders are listed as “unknown ethnicity.”
  • This Bill is designed as a talking point to paint whites as violent individuals who are attacking other races. That is not the case when the FBI stats are examined.
  • This bill would use taxpayer dollars to set up “hate crime hotlines” and “hate crime websites”. These would be spaces where any perceived hate crime could be reported in an anonymous fashion. I am certain these spaces would be weaponized against white individuals, and there would soon be instances of “hate crimes” such as “hate speech online” being reported to the FBI.
  • We would then have a society like London where you can literally go to jail over a tweet or online post that someone finds offensive.
  • Bills like this are extremely dangerous and should not be ignored.