If you criticize Congress, you must now report it to them

All politicians only care about getting reelected. 98% of them will sponser a bill or vote for one that sound like they are doing something positive, even if they know for sure it will not help. If you were to look at all of the laws on the books it would really make you sick how idiotic most are. Handgun laws that make it harder for a normal person to buy a gun, but do nothing about the bad guys who get weapons we only see on tv or movies. Laws that would ban certain shirts (Texas). Laws to ban this or that. If they government has a problem with you now they just lable you a terrorist. Then you have no rights. Those cool future movies where the United States turned into a place where it was against the law to do anything are coming.

these people are gonna keep messin around makin their stupid little laws and gonna really piss some people off! Once the american people take off their blinders this stupid administration is gonna see the biggest revolt / uprising ever. they think these other countries raise alot of h*ll wait till they make the football dads and soccer moms angry
Here is a related link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, all I can say is when I issue my report, they better break out the infamous BLACK ink. They sure as Hell won't want anyone else to know what I say about them.

turning into the USSR? I guess the USA as we knew it does not exsist anymore. So what have we become? what will it be like in a few years? Maybe we will be taken the the FEMA concentration camps for extermination.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I strongly recommend members troll through the anonymous posts regularly, there a some nice gems on a regular basis.

Yep, thanks for that SO, and I do check the anon board regularly. But I can't for the life of me figure out how to respond to a post in anon, back in the original thread...That whole system still eludes me.

But back on topic, I am wondering how, with a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, the Reps plan on getting this passed. Surely the Dems aren't gonna go for this?

Don't automatically assume its the Republicans alone pushing it. There are plenty of Democrats co-sponsoring this bill along with Harry Reid. The full text of the bill along with its co-sponsors can be found here:

thomas.loc.gov...:s.00001:

Here is an email I got from the NRA on this topic. I think that this issue should be important to more than just gun owners.

This week - perhaps even tomorrow - the U.S. Senate is taking up legislation that could stifle gun owners' voices in the legislative process.

To ensure gun owners remain able to speak out in support of our Second Amendment rights, during debate this week on S.A. 3, the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act", Senators Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will offer an amendment to strike Sec. 220-the section that would force countless groups of ordinary citizens to register with the federal government as "lobbyists," with all the attendant restrictions, costs, and penalties.

The First Amendment protects an unqualified "right of the people . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." One of NRA's greatest strength is our members' ability to fully use the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment. But Sec. 220 would, for the first time in American history, regulate "the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials." Among its everyday adverse effects would be the following:

Organizations answering mail, e-mail, or telephone calls from people who may or may not be members would have to either verify each person's status as a paying "member" as defined in Section 220, or refrain from urging those people to call Congress about legislative issues. Of course, every day, NRA engages in these types of activities with members and non-members alike.

Organizations would have to screen e-mail subscriptions to exclude subscribers who are not paying members or else report all e-mail alerts as "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." This would have a severe impact on the Friday NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert - and on Special Alerts like this one.
Sec. 220 would also do a great disservice by increasing the power of the anti-gun media to the detriment of the people. For example, a privately-owned newspaper could run editorials every day advocating drastic restrictions on Second Amendment liberties-without being subject to any reporting requirements. However, if a staff member of a pro-gun organization, such as NRA, writes a letter to the editor of that newspaper that expresses an opposing view and urges readers to call their senators, that letter would be a "paid effort to stimulate grassroots lobbying." The organization would have to report the cost of the staffer's salary for writing and submitting the letter. This requirement would apply even if the newspaper never publishes the letter, since it is still a "paid attempt . to influence the general public." (Emphasis added)

Similarly, if the grassroots organization pays an advertising agency to create and place a newspaper ad in the same newspaper, the advertising agency would have to register as a "grassroots lobbying firm" within 45 days of being retained and report costs of the communication-even if the ad never runs! The registration requirement would signal the group's plans to opponents, and constitute a prior restraint on free speech, contrary to principles of the First Amendment.

Violations of any of these complex, technical provisions could be punishable by massive civil penalties and felony prison terms under the substitute bill that the Senate will consider. Ultimately, Sec. 220 would force so many organizations to report so many activities that the information would become useless. It would simply be impossible for interested observers to sort the wheat from the chaff.

The First Amendment protects the "right of the people"-not the "right of people who can afford teams of lawyers, accountants, and disclosure specialists." Because the ability of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public is so central to the First Amendment and our ability to protect the Second Amendment, we urge you to contact your U.S. Senators immediately and urge them to support the Bennett-McConnell Amendment (#20) to strike Section 220 in the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act." You can reach your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121. You may also e-mail your Senators by clicking here: www.capwiz.com...

Once you have contacted your two U.S. Senators, please urge your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners to do the same!

You can voice your opposition to this legislation by sending an email or a letter, or even better by calling your Senators urging them to support the Bennett-McConnell Amendment.

Here is a sample correspondence:

[date]

[recipient address]


[recipient name],

I urge you to support the Bennett-McConnell Amendment (#20) to strike
Section 220 in the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act."

Sincerely,


[your name]


[edit on 2007/1/18 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady, am I missing something? When I read the bill, it stipulated that unless one is being paid by a client, they are not subject to the law. So long as the NRA was not being paid by a second party to stimulate grassroots lobbying, they could encourage as many people as they like to contact congress.

Am I mistaken?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Grady, am I missing something? When I read the bill, it stipulated that unless one is being paid by a client, they are not subject to the law. So long as the NRA was not being paid by a second party to stimulate grassroots lobbying, they could encourage as many people as they like to contact congress.

Am I mistaken?

No not all.

This does not affect, people who contact their congress men, to talk to them about issues.

This is when you GIVE your congressmen money or other favour for helping you creating a law. Lobbyism...!

DEFEATED

senate.gov

The vote was 55 to 43 to kill the added provision. All 48 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted against requiring online pundits, communicating to more than 500 people, to register. Interesting tell-tale is that all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats... I wonder who they were trying to keep criticism away from?

That's a surprisingly narrow defeat for something like this.

Surprisingly narrow? SO, I think you understated that just a little., let's try scarily narrow, or frighteningly narrow.

I'm no fan of professional lobbiests. Infact they are a blight on the body politic. However, this amendment was rather vaguely worded and could have, infact probably would have, been interpreted in ways not originally intended.

How soon before someone tries again? Of course, it'll all be in the name of stamping out corruption, or something of the sort.

Both of my states senators voted nay.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by seagull]

Police state. Prison planet. Freedom is slavery. If they could just harness some of the energy they use to subvert and control citizens think of the good that could be done. Was 9/11 really the cause of all this supression or was the ruling class just over reacting to Watergate. Many felt , among them Cheney and Rumsfeld, that presidential power was minimized unfairly after that. So their response was the theory of the unitary executive which is a frontal assault on democracy. We the people became we the executive branch. If there is a pendulum I hope it's swinging back now.