Kathi for Congress Blog http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/ Kathi for Congress news and updates. en-us $tooldomain Politics Our Military Women & Men Deserve a Raise http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=201605231342 http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=201605231342 <p>Congress always seems able to find money to fund wars, but seldom to pay for all the services our troops need when they return. With well over a decade of war, many more need VA services than for which the VA was intentioned, yet Congress doesn&rsquo;t seem to find enough money to greatly increase the number of hospital beds and services for veterans. Neither does the GOP-led Congress seem to be able to find the money to give our troops a pay raise, even when many are having to rely on food stamps for their families. Many join the military for the benefits they&rsquo;re promised- healthcare, college, a good retirement. We&rsquo;ve all heard the stories of the long waits for VA care- when you have a system set up for a certain number of people, but then load in many times more people, it will get bogged down- guaranteed! When we promise college, then we need to pay for college, no ifs, ands or buts.</p> <p>What we also need to do is to support these young women and men who go into the military now. Many are married and have families, and <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/hungry-heroes-25-percent-military-families-seek-food-aid-n180236">don&rsquo;t make enough to support their families, so they have to turn to the government for food stamps.&nbsp; </a></p> <p>&nbsp;It would be interesting to run the numbers, seeing how much food stamps cost us.&nbsp;Eliminating the need for food stamps could help to offset what I&#39;m about to propose.</p> <p>When members of military are deployed, be they active duty military, reservists or guard, their pay while deployed is income tax free, but the moment they get back home, it is taxed again. Not only is this difficult when it comes to filing income taxes, I think it short-changes the sacrifices they make in everyday life, even in America, serving in our military. Why not make all of their military pay income tax free, whether here or abroad? Given that the base pay for a new recruit is around $18,000, this makes sense. The lowest paid military are in the 10-15% tax bracket, so rather than a 1% pay raise as promised through 2017, we&rsquo;d give them a 10-15% raise, all at once. Perhaps it needs to be phased out at the higher pay grades- someone making $65,000 a year could afford to pay taxes, and by the time we&rsquo;re paying them that, they&rsquo;re making about the same as they would in private industry. Like so many good ideas, this one didn&rsquo;t originate with me, and it does need some more research, but it makes sense and needs to be considered. A retired military man contacted me recently, and suggested this as way to give our troops a pay raise. If we&rsquo;re going to drive up our deficit fighting wars, then let&rsquo;s either drive it up a little more to give our military folks this much-needed raise, or let&rsquo;s cut some of those military weapons that the generals say are not needed or wanted, but that Congress continues to fund, (because the weapons-helicopters, tanks, etc.- are manufactured in their districts, and they don&rsquo;t want to cause unemployment.) Let&rsquo;s help those factories refit and start manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines and/or rainwater harvesting equipment. We can beat those &ldquo;swords&rdquo; into &ldquo;plows&rdquo;, freeing up money to offset the de facto raises for our military, &nbsp;and it would&nbsp;help make our country more sustainable in terms of power and water. It may also help with troop retention and recruitment. What&rsquo;s not to like about this?</p> 23 May 2016 13:42:00 EST http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed= http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed= :00 EST Reasonable Gun Safety http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=201604201621 http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=201604201621 <p>If you want to buy more than 25 lbs of ammonium nitrate, there are <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/nation/la-na-ammonium-nitrate-20110803">regulations</a>, because of the Oklahoma City bombing.</p> <p>If you want to buy<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/buy-too-much-sudafed-and-you-may-get-a-visit-from-a-cop/"> decongestant</a>, even in allergy-prone Austin, you must not only show a photo ID, but also can only buy a limited amount, no matter how many people in your family need the medicine, because it can also be used to make meth.</p> <p>There are safety <a href="http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/">regulations</a> for cars (seat belts, anyone) and many other facets of our lives.</p> <p>Yet, even though tens of&nbsp;thousands<a href="https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/"> die each year </a>from <a href="http://www.shootingtracker.com/Main_Page">gun violence</a>, and even though the majority of people,&nbsp;want reasonable gun safety laws, this GOP-led Congress refuses to do anything.</p> <p>64% of gun deaths are suicides. I just read today about a man in the Houson area&nbsp;who apparently killed his wife, their two small children and then committed suicide, all with a gun. The children of Sandy Hook haunt me, and the thought that those parents who lost their babies to gun violence visited Congress people in their offices, and yet, NOTHING was done is unconscionable. Perhaps if we&#39;d had a law that said you had to show a photo ID to buy ammunition,&nbsp;when&nbsp;mass murders started buying a lot of ammunition (think Sandy Hook and Califorinia terrorists),&nbsp; they could be caught before they murdered innocents. Parents should not have to bury their babies because of gun violence.</p> <p>I realize we don&#39;t have a Constitutional right to allergy relief, chemical fertilizers or even cars, but the 2nd amendment states &quot; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&quot; It doesn&#39;t say &quot;A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; AND the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which is how the gun industry wants it to read. We&#39;re no where near &quot;well-regulated&quot;, and closing the gun-show/internet sales loophole so that people will still have background checks is a reasonable step, and is supported by the majority of Americans, including Republicans.</p> <p>I believe in reasonable gun safety and it is past time we had a Congress that doesn&#39;t shake in their boots at the thought of getting a bad grade from the NRA.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> 20 Apr 2016 16:21:00 EST Climate Change response, Thomas vs Williams http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=201604021546 http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=201604021546 <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">Climate change- over 90% of scientists say it is real and that humans are contributing to it. The few who don&rsquo;t are mostly financed by Big Oil.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">Think of it this way: if you were sick, and 9 doctors told you that you needed to quit doing X or you would die, but 1 disagreed (and that one happens to work for the company that makes X), on which would you be willing to bet your life?</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">My opponent doesn&rsquo;t address climate change on his website, but given his votes, it is a safe bet that: 1. </span></span><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">he doesn&rsquo;t think that we can do anything differently that will make our earth safer for the future, 2. &nbsp;doesn&rsquo;t believe that climate change is affected by humans, or 3.&nbsp;he doesn&rsquo;t care about the future. None are stances our elected leaders, those who CAN pass legislation to make changes, should have.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">&nbsp;A few examples of those votes:</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Rep. Williams voted for big oil subsidies for drilling on public lands (Roll Call vote 408)</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp; Rep. Williams voted to undermine the Clean Air Act (House Roll Call vote 384)</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">3.&nbsp;&nbsp; Rep. Williams voted for H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which moves us backward on energy policy by slashing funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency while boosting funding for dirty fossil fuels.&nbsp;</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">Source:&nbsp; League of Conservation Voters, <a href="http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/roger-williams"><span style="color:#0000FF;">http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/roger-williams</span></a></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">&nbsp;</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">We have been subsidizing big oil for generations. We need to change those subsidies to clean, renewable energy, and to <a href="http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Why-Making-Energy-from-Dirt-Mig"><span style="color:#0000FF;">thorium research</span></a> (a promising form of safe nuclear energy) and we need to do it without delay. &nbsp;We also need to do it in a way that creates jobs and strengthens our economy.&nbsp; The longer we wait to act, the more it will cost.&nbsp; </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;">Every year we push it back is less time for our children and grandchildren to have a safe earth. It may not be a big problem while my generation is alive, but I care about what our daughter inherits from us, and with what those who come after will have to live. If predictions are correct, the land my family has owned since the 1830&rsquo;s in SE Texas may become beachfront property in the next 100 years. While that would certainly improve its value, I don&rsquo;t think my family&rsquo;s personal future profit trumps the welfare of people in coastal areas, not only of our state and country, but of the entire world. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html"><span style="color:#0000CD;">Most Americans understand the dangers of climate change and want Congress to take responsible action.</span></a><span style="color:#0000CD;">&nbsp; </span>(&ldquo;The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of independents, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future&rdquo;)&nbsp; As your Representative, I will work with Democrats and Republicans to implement solutions to climate change that reduce risks while strengthening our economy.&nbsp; The responsible thing for our environment and our economy is to take action now to address climate change. &nbsp;</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">&nbsp;</p> 02 Apr 2016 15:46:00 EST My memories of 9/11/2001 http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=20160911639 http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=20160911639 <p>I have two very strong memories about 9/11. September 11, 2001 was a beautiful morning. We&#39;d been living in our home for a little over a year, and were clearing some of the land to build a barn. We&#39;d borrowed a friend&#39;s tractor-mounted wood chipper and were chipping up cedars as we cut them. That morning, Mark couldn&#39;t get it started. We were still fairly new to town, and didn&#39;t know who might be able to fix it. I came inside to call a friend who&#39;d lived here many years and ask her. When she answered the phone, I knew something was wrong. This is a woman who just didn&#39;t get shaken up easily, but she sounded as if she&#39;d lost the world- something in the tone of her voice. I asked her what was wrong, and she asked if I&#39;d been watching TV, which we hadn&#39;t, we&#39;d been outside chain sawing down &quot;cedars&quot; since first light. She told me that a plane had struck the towers in NYC and that she didn&#39;t know what was going on. She said I should turn on the TV, which I promptly did, and watched in horror. I watched, dumbstruck for several minutes, then remembered Mark out on the tractor. I ran out to tell him that planes had flown into the World Trade Centers and that he should come watch. He didn&#39;t believe me at first, said I MUST be mistaken, then I think he saw the look on my face. He turned off the tractor and ran inside with me. We spent most of the rest of the day, like so many of us, glued to the TV, watching in horror as the towers came down. We heard the reporters speaking of people jumping to their deaths, and cried along with the rest of our nation and much of the world.</p> <p>The other memory that is linked with 9/11 was our adoption. We&#39;d had one referral a year or so earlier, but 6 months into it, when they finally did the DNA test, they found that the woman relinquishing little Flor de Maria was actually no biological kin to her. She was arrested, little Flor was taken from the only home she&#39;d ever known (her foster mother&#39;s home) and placed in a government orphanage. We&#39;d tried to find out where she was, and offered to pay to place her in a better orphanage, as the government ones were notoriously poorly-run, over-crowded and under-staffed, but were told we &quot;had no right to know anything about the child&quot;- the baby we&#39;d loved for 6 months, who we&#39;d visited and held the month before. It was devastating.<br /> In August of 2011, we&#39;d told them we were finally ready to move forward with another referral, but that we wanted a DNA test done before we even saw photos of the baby. They&#39;d called us&nbsp;the last week of August, told us they had a referral and that they were getting the DNA test done. As it turns out, they accidentally mailed us the referral package, with photos, before the test was done. We&#39;d put it up, refusing to even look, until we knew for sure this child was legally able to be relinquished, but we were on pins and needles, wanting to see if this was indeed to be our daughter. The DNA test was done, and was in the air, on its way to the lab in New Jersey on 9/11. Of course, the plane was landed, and everything stood still for our adoption, too. They finally ended up driving everything, so the DNA test did get to NJ, a few days later, and we found out in late Sept. that the woman relinquishing this baby was indeed her biological mother, so we opened the package and accepted the referral of our Lettie.</p> <p>In my mind, Lettie&#39;s life is tied up with 9/11. Her DNA test being slowed down by all the landed planes, but also that in her lifetime, there has only been 1 month and 2 days that the US was not at war, and she is 15 now. She, and all children, deserve a world without constant, ongoing war, but how do we get there? I feel like we&#39;ve spent the last 15 years fighting, and it doesn&#39;t seem to be getting much, if any, better. Should we try something different? I know that is &quot;sacrilege&quot; to some, but when doing the same thing over and over gets basically the same results- more carnage, more radicalized males and now females, too, maybe we need to consider a different path, but certainly not&nbsp;hate-filled one of the GOP Presidential nominee.<br /> <br /> This is a day for remembering- what we were doing, how we remember this day, how our lives, and the lives of people all over the world have been changed since then.Tomorrow, we need to talk more about how we go forward, how we make this a better world, so that children aren&#39;t living in a war-world for all of their lives. I believe we owe that to our children.<br /> <br /> For all who lost their lives on this fateful day 15 years ago, my heart goes out to their family and friends. For all who have had their lives irrevocably changed in the wars since, my heart goes out to you and your families. We need to do all we can for our veterans who are fighting, but also for the people who live in those parts of the world where they truly don&#39;t know what the next minutes bring. Hug your families today, remember that some folks didn&#39;t get a chance to say &quot;goodbye.&quot; Life is precious.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> 11 Sep 2016 6:39:00 EST Republicans bury their head in sand, betting lives that climate change isn't real http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=20160629816 http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=20160629816 <p>In mid-June, Congress passed an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill to block funding for <a href="http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/612812/dod-releases-report-on-security-implications-of-climate-change">military planning to prepare for climate change</a>.&nbsp; Every Democrat voted against the amendment, but almost every Republican, including those in the <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll314.xml">Texas delegation, voted for it</a>, thus denying critical resources to our military.&nbsp;</p> <p>This amendment is a serious mistake, and now we can only hope that the Senate does not agree to adopt it in conference committee. We expect our military to keep us safe, now and in the future, and that requires planning. They deserve our full support in that incredibly difficult mission.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>The amendment to block funding for this vital planning is a mistake for at least three reasons:</p> <p>First, it undermines our military.&nbsp; Since the George W. Bush Administration, the Department of Defense has identified climate change as a serious threat. Climate change is expected to cause a host of security issues, including water and food shortages, mass migrations of people, humanitarian crises and conflict over water resources. Rising sea levels are expected to endanger critical naval infrastructure. Texas has 367 miles of coastline, rising seas will affect us directly. Climate change has serious implications for threat development, weapons acquisition and personnel training. Our military fully recognizes these challenges, and has identified the need for careful planning to prepare for them. Even <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/477014145/rising-seas-made-this-republican-mayor-a-climate-change-believer">Republican mayors in Florida </a>are starting to work on raising their street levels and considering the impact rising waters are already having on their towns. This is responsible management, and we should support it.</p> <p>Second, blocking planning now will cost more money and create more risk in the future.&nbsp;&nbsp;According to a report by <a href="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/06/republicans-trying-to-stop-pentagon-climate-plan-000149">Politico,</a> military experts say that effective planning now would save money in the long run. Failing to account for the effects of climate change will also create the risk that the military is ill-prepared for future engagements, lacking the right equipment, skills and strategies to respond to future challenges. That means more resources will be required and, even more concerning, risks will be higher than necessary.</p> <p>Third, this action ignores the reality of climate change and the will of the American people. The vast majority of climate scientists have concluded that climate change is a serious risk, as have the climate experts working for the military. Republicans in Congress have frequently said that they &ldquo;are not scientists&rdquo;, but they seem to have no trouble overruling the experts who are, or listening only to the small percentage of scientists who are paid by the fossil fuel industry. (&ldquo;Follow the money.&rdquo;) According to recent surveys, a large majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and want to see action taken.&nbsp; A November 2015 poll by the New York Time and CBS found that 75% of Americans believe climate change is having a serious impact on our environment now or will in the future.&nbsp; A January 2015 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html">New York Times poll </a>found that 74% of Americans believe the Federal government should be taking action on climate change.&nbsp; In ignoring the need for long range planning around climate change, this action by Congress is out of step with the reality of climate science and the American people.</p> <p>Some in Congress defended the amendment by saying that climate change planning would &ldquo;distract from combatting ISIS.&rdquo;&nbsp; But the military does not and never has had the luxury of focusing on just one thing.&nbsp; Our military must constantly prepare for a wide range of risks across the globe, both now and in the future. &nbsp;According to David Titley, a retired Rear Admiral and former senior-level military scientist, the military is capable of responding to ISIS and planning for climate change at the same time. &ldquo;When you are running an organization of $600 plus billion, you have a lot of people and need to consider a lot of things.&rdquo; It would be irresponsible for our military to focus so much on one current threat that they fail to plan for future threats.&nbsp;</p> <p>Responsible long-range planning is just common sense, and is especially critical when it comes to military planning to keep our country safe now and in the future.&nbsp; We should support the military in this effort. This seems to be more of the &ldquo;block anything Obama&rdquo; track, but the military first IDed climate change as a serious threat during George W. Bush&rsquo;s presidency. It shouldn&rsquo;t be about politics, but Republicans are playing political football with our country&rsquo;s (and therefore our children&rsquo;s) future. This is not&nbsp;responsible&nbsp;governance, and&nbsp;should not be allowed to stand.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> 29 Jun 2016 8:16:00 EST Yes to "No Fly, No Buy" http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=20160624831 http://www.kathiforcongress.com/blog/?viewDetailed=20160624831 <p>Bravo to the US House of Representatives for their sit-in protesting Paul Ryan&rsquo;s refusal to allow a vote on reasonable gun safety laws. Bravo, too, to the Congresspeople who are broadcasting via Periscope &amp; Facebook, and CNN and C-SPAN for broadcasting it, so that the people of the world can see participatory democracy. Ryan ordered the House cameras cut off, but with an iPhone and the Periscope ap, we can still see. Shame on the Republicans for adjourning and leaving for the holiday. I wonder how many more people will died before they return on <span class="aBn" data-term="goog_1777456246" tabindex="0"><span class="aQJ">July 5</span></span>, due to the easy accessibility of guns to people who the majority of Americans agree should not have that acess. Why are the Republicans so afraid of a vote?<br /> Earlier this week, the Senate allowed a &ldquo;cloture&rdquo; vote on some gun safety bills, none of which got the 60 votes needed to actually bring the bills to the floor, where only 51 votes would be needed to pass them. The Democrats wanted a much more inclusive list, (no fly, various terrorists watch lists), which includes around 1 million people. It is my understanding that the bills the Republicans wanted to pass would have affected only ~2,700 people. One million vs 2,700. There is no doubt that many more lives would be saved with the Democrats&rsquo; bill, but I&rsquo;ve got to tell you, if it is between something and nothing, I&rsquo;ll go with something. Had they passed the Republicans&rsquo; bill, the Democrats could have then said they did it save at least some lives, but hammered the GOP on the 997,300 people who are on the various lists of possibly dangerous people who would still have easy access to weapons. Sen. Susan Collins is working on a<a href="http://www.pressherald.com/2016/06/21/susan-collins-builds-senate-coalition-for-no-fly-no-buy-gun-control/" target="_blank"> <strong><span style="color:#0000ff">compromise**</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color:#0000ff">,</span></strong> and I know that is a bad word for some people, but that is how government works. You work like heck for what you want, and most bills leave both sides relatively unhappy, but if something is accomplished, that is better than nothing, and something gives us a starting point to push for more. That is the kind of Congressperson I&rsquo;ll be. That doesn&rsquo;t make me a DINO, what it makes me is someone who will work to get things done.** <strong><span style="color:#0000ff"> </span></strong><em>(This &quot;compromise bill &quot; sounds like one of the bills from the GOP offered this week, but does have some bi-partisan support now.)</em><br /> We don&rsquo;t want to live in a &ldquo;Minority Report&rdquo; world- but we do live in a different world than did our founders, and if folks are on a list where they&rsquo;re suspected of terrorist sympathies, they don&rsquo;t need to be able to buy a weapon that can murder dozens in seconds as easily as you can purchase groceries. The gun show/internet background check loophole needs to be closed, too, as many people who otherwise aren&#39;t allowed to purchase guns can currently buy them that way.<br /> The GOP is worried that it might stop someone who should be able to buy one of these guns, yet there are processes for someone to challenge their inclusion on these lists. These lists should be consolidated, so that, for instance, when the FBI has someone on their list, local police will know it, too. It might save some lives along the way. These are no perfect bills, but we have to start somewhere. If you can&rsquo;t fly easily, you shouldn&rsquo;t be able to easily buy weapons that can be used for massacre. Anyone who buys a gun or over a certain amount of ammunition needs to be background checked, no matter the source of the gun or ammo. I&rsquo;ll go a little further, saying that we need to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic weapons. Weapons of war have no place in civilian life. Massacre prevention is important, and you need to question anyone for whom you plan to vote this fall about their massacre prevention stance.<br /> The GOP says it is about mental illness, and there is no doubt the mental illness has played a large part in the mass shootings by white males, but terrorism isn&rsquo;t what we consider mental illness. I&rsquo;ll also point out that all countries have people with mental illness, but most countries of the civilized world have much stricter laws about weapons such as those used in most mass shootings in the US, and they don&rsquo;t have the epidemic of mass shootings as does the US. They don&rsquo;t have laws preventing the government from paying for studies about the effects and causes of gun violence. No, they also don&rsquo;t have a 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment, but our 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment is not an open invitation for anyone to buy whatever guns/weapons/ammunition they want. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment says &quot;A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.&quot;&nbsp; The NRA and their minions always ignore that first part, which, since it was the first part of the sentence, I think the founders thought that &ldquo;well-regulated&rdquo; and &ldquo;militia&rdquo; were important. If they were well-regulated, then they&rsquo;d obviously have some type of registration of who were those people, so they could call up a &quot;militia&quot; when needed,&nbsp; but the Republicans won&rsquo;t even let the TABC computerize their background check records-(which would make background checks much more accurate &amp; quick)- all is on paper, boxes and boxes and warehouses full of paper. If you&rsquo;ve not seen <strong><a href="http://underthegunmovie.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0000ff">Under the Gun</span></a></strong>, I urge you to watch. It will give you a lot of facts and figures about the &ldquo;gun wars.&rdquo;<br /> Democrats don&rsquo;t want to take away guns people already own, that is just more fear-mongering from the NRA and their GOP servants. What most reasonable people want is for people who are on watch lists as being possible terrorists or terrorist&rsquo;s sympathizers not have the ability to purchase the &ldquo;tools&rdquo; to commit massacres in our country. The majority of gun owners, nonLegislative Republicans and even NRA members support this.&nbsp; Most reasonable people don&rsquo;t believe that civilians need &ldquo;armor-piercing&rdquo; bullets, such as the 3,000 rounds that were purchased by the murderer of those in the Aurora, CO. movie theater. Those bullets made it impossible for people to hide behind the seats, because the bullets tore right through them, and we won&rsquo;t even talk about the carnage done to people&rsquo;s bodies by these bullets.<br /> When Congresspeople care more for keeping their job than for the safety of their constituents, they should be fired. It isn&rsquo;t NRA money they fear losing as much as it is that the NRA will whip up an extremist to &ldquo;primary&rdquo; them, and the way the Republicans have drawn the districts, they know the extremists make the decisions on who wins the GOP primaries. Anytime one is willing to sell out their constituents to keep their job, they need to immediately resign and go into another line of work, IF they have any integrity. If they truly believe that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Amendment is the most important amendment, as my opponent has stated, then they need to be fired by their constituents, and someone hired who <strong><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA_jarhGIi0" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0000ff">WILL vote for common sense gun laws.</span></a></strong><br /> If you see the current CD25 Congressman out and about during the Republican recess, please ask him if he supports universal background checks, and what he will do to keep weapons that can kill dozens of people in seconds out of the hands of terrorists in our country. Don&#39;t let him wiggle out of it, make him answer.<br /> Lastly, thank you for your support. Convention was hectic, and I didn&#39;t get to meet as many of you as I had wished, but I&#39;m working on getting to all the counties. If I&#39;ve not yet been to your town/county/local club, please <strong><a href="javascript:void(location.href='mailto:'+String.fromCharCode(75,97,116,104,105,64,75,97,116,104,105,70,111,114,67,111,110,103,114,101,115,115,46,99,111,109)+'?subject=Inviting%20Kathi%20to%20speak')"><span style="color:#0000ff">contact me and invite</span></a></strong>. We&#39;ll get it scheduled and get there.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> 24 Jun 2016 8:31:00 EST