The Flint Michigan jokes are great. Because it is the job of the police to pump lead into black people and actually, I did not realize that Flint was made up with predominately black people. I just thought it was low income with white people and black people. I thought that because Michael Moore is from there.
But it is only ten days before the Iowa Caucus and its getting heated out there between Donald trump and Ted Cruz. I also love how Donald Trump of all people says that Ted Cruz is much too abrasive to be the POTUS. That is just great.
I cannot stand Ted Cruz. I wrote about him this week:
Ted Cruz lies all of the time and he is an annoying person.
He just mentioned that he would start a federal investigation on the fake Planned Parenthood Videos and over the weekend he lied about our military.
Even Fox News fought back with regard to his (Ted Cruz) carpet bombing statement to his face on the Sunday news show. Chris Wallace pretty much ridiculed Ted Cruz's irresponsible statement about carpet bombing ISIS in Syria using a general's words. Wallace started out by playing Cruz's comments.
We will have a president who would make clear we will utterly destroy ISIS. ... We will carpet bomb them into oblivion.
Mr. Cruz is a lawyer and a foreign-policy neophyte. Anyone with any understanding of military strategy knows that “carpet-bombing” is a term used by amateurs trying to sound tough. Indiscriminate bombing has never been a military strategy, and it would be senseless in an age of “smart” weaponry and precise targeting.
In Syria and Iraq, mass bombing would kill hundreds of innocent civilians and fuel radicalization. That’s why military leaders utter the term “carpet-bomb” only while laughing at Mr. Cruz.
“That’s just another one of those phrases that people with no military experience throw around,” chuckled retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a military historian and former commandant of the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.
The only thing close to “carpet-bombing” was Operation Arc Light in 1965, in which two or three B-52 Stratofortresses bombed sections of Vietnam to support tactical operations on the ground, not to flatten the place. “America has never carpet-bombed anyone at any time because that’s not our doctrine,” said General Scales.
Ted Cruz came back with a rather belligerent answer. "Well look, I will apologize to no one with how vigorous I will be winning the war on terror defeating radical Islamic terrorism." Ted Cruz said. "We will start by having a president willing to acknowledge our enemy. Say it by its name which President Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to do."
Ted Cruz then went into a convoluted monologue about what carpet bombing means. He tried to use Dessert Storm as an example. He then started itemizing each part of the military that is smaller. As a Conservative one would believe smaller and more effective is what he would be aspiring for.
Chris Wallace then schooled the "lawyer and foreign-policy neophyte." "There is a big difference," said Wallace. "First of all, military people would tell you we didn't carpet bomb in Kuwait in the Gulf War. We did precision striking. In addition if I may, the Iraqi army was all massed by itself in the Kuwaiti desert. We are now talking about ISIS, soldiers, they are not massed. They are embedded in Mosul. They are embedded in Raqqa with civilians."
In effect Ted Cruz is talking about effecting a massacre. He would likely be committing a war crime if he carpet bombed an entire city to kill a few terrorists.
It was evident Chris Wallace was disgusted with Ted Cruz's rhetoric. He said as much when Cruz responded to his fact based statement. "I would like to ask you about some of your votes and not the rhetoric," Chris Wallace exasperatedly said before Cruz responded with more statements highlighting his willful ignorance.
The facts are that the air force has 5,032 aircraft with another 40 combat squadrons today (http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/us-air-force/) when Cruz stated on Sunday that we have less than 4,000 in place (down from over 8,000 in 1991).
And, we really have a a total of 430 ships in action today with another 100 to 200 in reserve or not in reserve but being made or being fixed today (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a15297/us-navy-entire-fleet/). Cruz said on Sunday that we had 529 in 1991 and a total of 272 active military ships today.
He then relates what we did in the Gulf War as 'carpet bombing' when that is an insult to the men and woman that actually used what was absolute precision air bombing and we all saw that live while it happened on CNN. Besides, we can all remember the Colin Powell press conferences those days and during it? And, it is a deceiving comment to make in comparison to that war and to the war we face today which Chris Wallace mentioned so that was at least good to see.
Honestly, he the most annoying human being I have to listen to every day by far and by leaps and bounds (which says alot considering the cast of clowns out there in the media every day).
Remember him reading Dr. Suess for like 8 hours? He is an idiot.
Oh and yes. The Donald brought out sarah Palin this week. It seems like that went down weeks ago when she incoherently spoke at his event. She made zero sense on a good day. She actually made no sense:
And, wow. great guests tonight. My man John Meacham is on and Seth MacFarlene is also on today which I have been anticipated all week.
The Interview tonight is with Michael McCaul (R-TX), the Congressman representing Texas’ 10th district and the author of Failures of Imagination: Deadliest Threats to Our Homeland and How to Thwart Them. He is the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Twitter: @RepMcCaul.
regardless and aside from discussing how we can not get shamppo through the TSA sections at the airport, but Bill and Micahel discuss how the Obama administration tightened restrictions on European and other travelers who have visited Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan in the last five years, even as it said the new rules may not apply to those in certain occupations who have traveled for business.
The move quickly angered Republican lawmakers who accused the administration of circumventing the will of Congress.
The administration said Thursday that people who traveled to those countries as journalists, for work with humanitarian agencies or on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations and provincial or local governments may still be eligible to visit the United States without first obtaining a visa. People who have traveled to Iran since July 14, 2015, or Iraq for "legitimate business-related purposes" can also apply to come to the United States under the visa waiver program.
The Homeland Security Department said waivers for some applicants to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, will be granted on a "case-by-case" basis. Those travelers who are denied visa-free travel can still apply for visa through a U.S. embassy in their home country.
Americans may also end up affected by the new rule, if Europe introduces reciprocal action against U.S. citizens.
"The Obama administration is blatantly breaking the law, a law the president himself signed," said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul. "This is not a difference of opinion over statutory interpretation, it is a clear contradiction of the law and the agreement we reached with the White House. President Obama is again putting his relationship with Iran's supreme leader over the security of Americans."
The Texas Republican said the exemptions announced by the administration were already rejected by Congress. He added that he and his colleagues "will respond and are reviewing our options."
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia said the move "needlessly compromises our national security and the safety of the American people."
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Thursday that the visa waiver program should be reformed, but "singling people out because of their national origin is fundamentally at odds with American values and invites discrimination against American citizens who are dual nationals."
Citizens of 38 countries, mostly in Europe, are generally allowed to travel to the United States without applying for a visa. But they still have to submit biographical information to ESTA.
New rules governing who can use the program approved by Congress in December are intended to block Europeans who have fought for the Islamic State group and are likely to commit jihadi violence from entering the United States.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said waivers and exemptions would be applied "on a case-by-case basis." But he had no answer for questions, such as who has Iranian citizenship. Iran's government claims many people of Iranian heritage as citizens even if they're unaware of the matter or don't consider themselves Iranian dual nationals. It's unclear how the U.S. will approach the issue.
The administration is not yet making changes to limits on visa-free travel for dual nationals.
The new limits only affect a minority of Europeans, but it has prompted great concern in countries whose citizens generally enjoy visa-free travel to the United States. And it has drawn Iranian charges that the U.S. is violating last summer's nuclear accord by penalizing legitimate business travel to the Islamic Republic.
Iraq and Syria were targeted specifically because the Islamic State group has seized significant territory in each country for its would-be caliphate. Iran and Sudan, like Syria, are designated by the U.S. as state sponsors of terrorism.
The debate over tightening visa restrictions for Europeans even emerged as an issue in the administration's seemingly unrelated effort to ensure Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon.
As part of last summer's nuclear deal, the U.S. promised to introduce no new nuclear-related sanctions on Iran as long as it remains in compliance. After a complaint by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Secretary of State John Kerry responded in a letter last month that the U.S. would live up to its part of the bargain and not "interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran." He cited the administration's waiver authority among possible options.
Toner said the change reflects the concern about "European fighters returning from Syria or Iraq or elsewhere and then trying to come to the United States via visa-free travel. It's a recognition that threat exists and an attempt to add another layer of security."
He described the visa requirement as an "inconvenience" that doesn't affect the vast majority of European travelers. For those affected, he said, "they simply have to go apply for a visa at their embassy or consulate," like millions of people do every year all over the world.
In an open letter last month, the European Union's 29 ambassadors in Washington warned against a "blanket restriction" on travel to certain countries that it said would unfairly target innocent businesspeople, journalists and aid workers, as well as dual nationals.
Introducing this approach toward the 13 million Europeans who visit the U.S. each year "could trigger legally-mandated reciprocal measures, and would do nothing to increase security while instead hurting economies on both sides of the Atlantic," the ambassadors wrote.
The Panel tonight is made up with Alan Grayson (D-FL) is the Congressman representing Florida’s 9th district and a candidate for U.S. Senate. He is a contributor to the Huffington Post, where he recently authored “The Gun Show Loophole: Common Sense vs. Nonsense.” Twitter: @AlanGrayson. The panel also has Liz Mair, a Republican political consultant and head of the anti-Trump “Make America Awesome!” SuperPAC. Twitter: @LizMair. And, is with someone I have looked up to for decades, Jon Meacham, the Executive Editor and Executive Vice President of Random House, and author of Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush.Twitter: @jmeacham
Liz says that she would vote for a dry dog turd over Donald trump and Ted Cruz. And, that is coming from a right winger. Bill and the panel also discuss the parenting skills of the Palins and the Obamas in this clip from January 22, 2016:
They're half a world away from each other. One is a city of 99,000 in one of the richest countries in the world. The other is a city of 203,000 in a lower-middle-income country.
But there are a few threads of connection. Both were once bustling, industrial hubs, one dependent on the auto industry, the other on mining. Both were abandoned by the industry that once sustained them. "With declining industry in both communities, there was a series of bad decisions, a lack of attention, and environmental injustice," says Richard Fuller, president of Pure Earth, an organization that identifies and helps clean up poor communities with high levels of environmental toxins. Now, both Flint and Kabwe need the world's attention to clean up a mess.
And in each community, the mess is caused by lead poisoning.
Michigan Steps Up Efforts To Tackle Lead Crisis After Outcry. Lead contamination in the U.S. has dropped dramatically since the 1978 ban on lead-based paint in housing and on leaded gasoline in 1996. But it is still a problem in some of the country's poorest neighborhoods. In 2014, about one-half of 1 percent of American children under 6 had worrisome levels of lead in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The crisis in Flint, in which health officials found that city residents had been exposed to lead in their drinking water since April 2014, is a reminder that lead is a global problem that each year kills 143,000 people and is responsible for 600,000 new cases of children with intellectual disabilities.
"Flint is an example of a contaminated site," says Fuller. "But there are places hundreds of times worse, in thousands of places in the world. And that's not an exaggeration." One of those places is Kabwe.
The lead contamination began in the early 20th century. The town is located in Zambia on land rich in lead ore. "The town formed around a smelter that ran without any pollution controls," says Fuller. When the ore ran out, owners abandoned the smelter. "But the whole town became massively contaminated with lead. That smelter had a smokestack blowing every which way all the time. It's a very dry place, so dust was deposited everywhere." In 100 years, the toxic lead has not gone away. Children play in the dust, walk in it, have it blown in their faces and on their hands, and lick their fingers.
In a report published Nov. 7, 2014, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, researchers measured soil lead concentrations in various neighborhoods in Kabwe. They found soil concentrations of lead an average of three times higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard, and in the most toxic areas, more than 1,000 times higher than the EPA standard. And when they measured lead levels in the blood of children, they found the levels literally off the charts — levels in children from some neighborhoods so high that they surpassed the level the instruments could measure. The CDC uses a reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter to identify children with abnormally high lead levels. The lowest blood level in the children measured was 13.6 micrograms per deciliter; the average was 48.3; and the highest couldn't be measured because more than 25 percent of the children had levels higher than the 65 micrograms per deciliter the instruments could measure.
In a neighborhood called Chowa, closest to the old smelter, "almost every single child is suffering from lead poisoning," says Fuller.
When it comes to lead, health officials are most concerned about children because, as everyone knows, they can't keep their hands out of their mouths, even if they've just been playing in the dirt. And their brains are still works in progress, developing new neural connections every day with each new learning experience. "Lead interferes with neural connections," says Dr. Jack Caravanos, professor of environmental health at the City University of New York, School of Public Health, a technical adviser to Pure Earth and an author of the MMWR report. When lead enters the brain, he says, "there is a reduction in and disruption of those connections. It's generally considered irreversible."
Lead can harm adults, too, causing high blood pressure and kidney damage. In pregnant women, it can cause miscarriages, stillbirths and premature births.
In the neighborhood of Chowa, work has started to clean up the lead mess. "It's a huge project. Lead is an element, you can't destroy an element, but we've got to stop it from getting into the kids," says Fuller. His organization has begun literally moving the dirt with highest levels of contamination to encapsulate in landfills, then cover what's left behind with a permeable membrane. Workers cover the membrane with layers of clean soil. "We tamp it all down and stop the dirty stuff from rising," says Fuller. Local officials have been trained in the cleanup method and have tackled one neighborhood of 80 homes. There are thousands of homes yet to be cleaned up.
The problem of lead in the environment goes beyond industries leaving behind toxic messes. Some underground entrepreneurs are making their own present-day messes by recycling old car batteries in unregulated, unsafe ways. Those batteries contain a large amount of lead, and recycling them is a thriving, informal business in many parts of the world, says Fuller. "People might take them to a river bank, break them down with an ax, let acid pour on the ground," says Fuller. "They're looking to create an ingot they can sell. It's a toxic and dirty method, and it spreads through the community through the river, or the air from burning. Every urban center in the developing world has these sites." In 2008, for example, 18 children in Senegal died of lead poisoning after they accompanied their mothers who took apart old batteries and melted them down for scrap lead.
As California Methane Leak Displaces Thousands, Will U.S. Regulate Natural Gas Sites Nationwide? Today is day 92 of a runaway natural gas leak above Los Angeles that has emitted more than 150 million pounds of methane, described as the nation’s biggest environmental disaster since the BP oil spill. Nearly 3,000 families in the community of Porter Ranch have been relocated into temporary housing. California Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in the area last week. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that accelerates climate change 86 times more than carbon dioxide. At its peak, the leak has spewed the equivalent pollution of 4.5 million cars each day. On top of the impact to surrounding communities, the Porter Ranch leak has raised concerns about similar incidents across the state and around the country. There are 14 such natural gas storage facilities in California and more than 400 across the United States. Critics say they are plagued by ailing infrastructure and a lack of adequate regulation.
Hold Company Responsible for Massive Hazardous Gas Leak.
Target: Jerry Brown, Governor of California
Goal: Demand punishments and policy changes in the wake of gas leak disaster.
Methane gas is leaking out of a storage facility at an alarming rate, causing headaches and nosebleeds for residents in the area. Since October, 150 million pounds of natural gas has been released into the atmosphere, an amount equal to one quarter of the entire state of California’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. School closures and mandatory home evacuations have forced thousands of residents of the nearby Porter Ranch community into temporary housing.
Methane gas is an asphyxiant, which, in high concentrations, can cause headaches, drowsiness, faintness and loss of consciousness due to decreased blood oxygen levels. Not only is it harmful to humans, but it is a major contributor to climate change as it can block heat from exiting the earth’s atmosphere. Methane is considered one of the worst greenhouse gasses due to its “global warming potential,” which is over 20 times higher than that of carbon dioxide.
Even more alarming than the massive scale of the leak is the fact that it could take months to fix. According to the Southern California Gas Company, the leak is coming from a breach in a deep underground well. By the time the leak is fixed, total damage could reach 400 to 500 million pounds of natural gas released into the atmosphere.
This event is a disaster for the inhabitants of nearby communities as well as the world’s environment as a whole. It is imperative that those responsible are held accountable and made to pay for their negligence. Sign the petition below to demand that those responsible are punished and that stricter policies are implemented to ensure that similar situations do not happen in the future.
PETITION LETTER: Click here to help!
Dear Governor Brown,
A gas leak at a Southern California Gas Company storage facility near Porter Ranch is causing negative health effects for residents, including headaches and nosebleeds. In a span of two months, the leak has released 150 million pounds of natural gas into the atmosphere, prompting the closures of two schools and the evacuation of thousands of residents. The leak is not expected to be fixed for another three to four months.
This leak is causing great harm to not only humans but the environment. The methane found in natural gas has a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon monoxide. This leak could produce pollution equal to one year of California’s greenhouse gas emissions before it is fixed. We, the undersigned, demand that those responsible for this disaster are held accountable by the state, and that policy changes are introduced in order to avoid similar catastrophes in the future.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo credit: Urban~commonswiki
|
The end of the show interview is with a favorite of mine, Seth MacFarlane. He is of course a filmmaker, producer, actor, and singer whose new album "No One Ever Tells You" has been nominated for a Grammy. Twitter: @sethmacfarlane.
Not only does Bill and Seth feel the way I spoke about above, but even Ice Cube says that the Oscar Controversy is 'just ridiculous'. They mention how movies with black people (7 years A Slave) in get nominated without whomever voted it in ever seeing it.
Honestly, I have no clue who and what is even nominated this year.
As most people may know, Seth backs Bernie Sanders. They are discussing the content from last week's debate.
6 takeaways from the Democratic debate. Bernie Sanders is mad as hell -- and he's hoping Democratic voters are, too.
The Vermont senator denounced a "corrupt" political system and cast himself as a break from it, while Hillary Clinton tied herself tightly with President Barack Obama and argued she'd build on his legacy, as the Democratic presidential contenders clashed Sunday night in Charleston.
Here are six takeaways from the final Democratic debate before the first votes are cast in Iowa and New Hampshire:
Sanders = Trump
It's not often you hear Sanders say the words "my good friend Donald Trump" -- but the two have something in common: Their tones match a moment of anger within the electorate.
Clinton promised continuity. She highlighted her record. She touted her ability to get results within the limitations of the modern political climate.
Sanders offered none of that. Like Trump, his cause is change, not compromise.
His take on why his Medicare-for-all proposal can't pass in Congress could have been applied to just about any of his arguments: "It's because we have a campaign finance system that is corrupt. We have super PACs. We have the pharmaceutical industry pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying and the private insurance companies as well."
Sanders' fire-and-brimstone touches on some of the same topics as the Republican front-runner -- particularly super PACs and the influence of money.
Just like Trump, Sanders even riffed on polling when asked about his strategy to win over African-American voters, arguing that they'll like him more once he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"Let me talk about polling. ... In terms of polling, guess what, we are running ahead of Secretary Clinton in terms of taking on my good friend Donald Trump," Sanders said. "We have the momentum. We're on a path to a victory."
Clinton = Obama
It was her go-to move, and she went to it a lot: On gun control, health care, financial regulation, her "many hours in the Situation Room advising President Obama" and more, Clinton cast herself as the defender of Obama's legacy and Sanders as someone who'd toss out his accomplishments.
There are three reasons for the strategy: Obama remains popular with Democrats. She has a strong claim to the President's legacy having served in his Cabinet as his top foreign policy officer. And minority voters favor Obama and Clinton over Sanders.
Clinton is eyeing South Carolina as a firewall -- a place she can regain her footing even if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that are whiter and more liberal than the Democratic electorate overall.
Her attacks on Sanders were all designed to drive a wedge between him and Obama.
She accused Sanders of calling Obama "weak" and "ineffective" when it came to perhaps Clinton's most vulnerable subject, Wall Street reform, and said he'd tried to recruit a primary challenger against Obama in 2011. That year, Sanders had said many Democrats are "deeply disappointed" in Obama's shifts rightward, and a primary opponent could "begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing."
"I am going to defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street, taking on the finance industry and getting results," Clinton said.
Purity vs. pragmatism on health care
Sanders' shoot-for-the-moon liberalism and Clinton's embrace of Obama were clearest in their biggest fight of the evening: health care.
Just two hours before the debate, Sanders had rolled out a tax plan that would fund his Medicare-for-all proposal to scrap private health insurance entirely and replace it with a government-run program.
Sanders offered himself as the true champion of the left's biggest policy dreams.
"What a Medicare-for-all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman and child as a right," he said. "The truth is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman ... they believed that health care should be available to all of our people."
Clinton, meanwhile, noted that Democrats had fought for a "public option" in Congress before Obamacare was passed -- but, to liberals' disappointment, hadn't succeeded.
And then she turned to Obama's legacy.
"We have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, the Democratic Party and our country," Clinton said. "To tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate, I think is the wrong direction."
Clinton's foreign policy advantage
When the debate shifted to foreign policy in its second hour, Clinton displayed a command that was in sharp contrast to Sanders' quiet.
She gamely handled a question about the moment she handed Russian officials a "reset" button as secretary of state and defended what she got for that symbolic button: a new START Treaty, as well as cooperation on sanctions for Iran.
Sanders, on the other hand, has tried to turn back questions about his foreign policy knowledge by pivoting to judgment. But as the primaries draw near, voters often spend time thinking about the commander-in-chief test -- and Sanders has a long way to go in convincing voters of his readiness to handle foreign affairs.
Nobody's hitting the Republicans
In every Republican debate, all the GOP candidates join together to bash Obama, Clinton and "Obama-Clinton" every chance they can get. And in the earlier Democratic debates, all Clinton and Sanders could talk about was how awful the Republican presidential field -- particularly Trump -- is.
Sunday night, there were very few cross-party attacks.
It's a reflection of a tightening race: Clinton spent her first months of the 2016 campaign refusing to even utter Sanders' name. Now, he's a real threat and her strategy was aimed at him, not the GOP.
Health care and gun control, in particular, have emerged as key splits in the Democratic race where Clinton believes she can win liberal voters from Sanders.
The debate was just a block away from the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, the site of last year's racially-motivated shooting of nine churchgoers. Clinton used that proximity to criticize Sanders, painting him as cozy with the National Rifle Association.
"He has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby, numerous times. He voted against the Brady Bill five times. He voted for what we call the Charleston loophole. He voted for immunity for gun makers and sellers," she said.
"He voted to let guns go onto Amtrak, guns go onto national parks. He voted against doing research to figure out how we can save lives."
Sanders didn't interject as the debate shifted topics -- a signal he was ready to move on.
Sanders willing to throw punches
No, he wouldn't swipe at Clinton's husband, saying he wants to focus "on the issues, not Bill Clinton's personal behavior."
But Sanders did show a new willingness to attack Clinton on personal matters. Twice, he hit her for delivering paid speeches to Goldman Sachs -- a move intended to undermine Clinton's credibility on Wall Street reform and call into question her commitment to reforming the political system more broadly.
"I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs," he said.
Minutes later, he swung again. "You've received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year," he said, later turning his focus to criminal justice and noting that "not one of their executives is prosecuted" for actions during the 2008 economic crisis.
The man who often crowed that he'd never run a negative attack ad in his life appears to sense that, with a lead in his sights in Iowa and New Hampshire, it's time to strike. Bernie Sanders referenced during a defense of his health care plan. It was Harry Truman. CNN's Maeve Reston contributed to this report.
Bernie was on fire! He nailed it over and over again. On health care. On Black Lives Matter. On Wall Street. On gun safety.
Did I mention health care??!!! He nailed it with answer after answer.
Listen, the establishment is going to try and say this debate wasn't a huge win for Bernie. They always do. But the campaign can prove them wrong if we voice our support in the only language the media understands.
The first question in the debate got to the heart of our campaign. Lester Holt asked us, "How would you think big?"
This country faces more serious problems today than at any time since the Great Depression. Now is NOT the time for thinking small. Now is NOT the time for the same-old, same-old establishment politics and stale inside-the-beltway ideas.
If we continue to stand together, we have the opportunity for our political revolution to achieve the goal of universal health care as a right for every man, woman, and child. When you’re sick and go to a doctor, you should not come out in bankruptcy.
We will break up the big banks, take on Wall Street, and make the economy work for everybody, not just a handful of millionaires and billionaires.
We will fight to reverse climate change. We will protect a woman's right to choose. We will make the minimum wage a living wage. We will make our communities safer from gun violence.
We will do all of this and more. But I can't take on the billionaire class alone. I need you to stand with me tonight. So I am asking you directly:
And, one of the key issues is something I personally resurrect last year. Three days before Hillary made it part of her campaign and a few more days before they mentioned it in that last debate, I wrote the following article about the fact that manufacturers and sellers are immune to law suits no matter what happens in America (http://donlichterman.blogspot.com/2015/10/another-day-another-mass-shooting-in.html):
Another Day, Another Mass Shooting in America. After another mass shooting in a white middle class part of America, there is the same uproar about the USA needing national background checks. There are also calls for us to look towards mental behavior issues. National Background checks and clamping down on mental behavior issues alone are an ineffective safety measure. We need to close existing loop holes in 33 states that allow the sales of firearms at gun shows without not only a simple background check but also without a simple verification of the gun purchaser's identity.
I recently saw an expose' on television that had a 15 year old kid attempt to buy a lottery ticket which he was denied to do at that market. I then watched that same kid try to buy liquor which again, he was denied by that liquor store clerk. He then tried to buy a pack of cigarettes which he was denied by that attendant at that market.
He then went to a gun show in Pennsylvania, I believe where he was able to buy 5 guns within an hour span of time.
There is something wrong with that scenario.
Besides, they are mere symptoms to the major problem we face with gun violence today
However, there is nothing worse than anything set forth by law, than gun makers being immune to civil liability laws against them. The following is a brief summary of the Equal access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, written by The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress. They are a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress and this bill I speak about was introduced to the House on 1/22/2013.
"The 'Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act' prohibits a court from dismissing an action against a manufacturer, seller, or trade association for damages or relief resulting from an alleged defect or negligence with respect to a product, or conduct that would be actionable under state common or statutory law in the absence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, on the basis that the action is for damages or relief from the criminal, unlawful, or volitional use of a qualified product."
Congress initially passed the law with support from Republicans as well as Democrats in pro-gun states, and Schiff’s proposed legislation failed.
What it does is make the contents of the Firearms Trace System database that is maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) subject to subpoena or other discovery and admissible as evidence in law suits. It permits such contents to be used, relied on, or disclosed, and permits testimony or other evidence to be based on the data, on the same basis as other information in a civil action in any state or federal court or in an administrative proceeding.
That is not allowed by law, today.
It should be proposed as legislation that would ease current law to allow people to file civil law suits against gun manufacturers and others in the industry when they act irresponsibly. The The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), would amend the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Rep. Schiff, that 2005 law enacted by George Bush Jr. and by Dick Cheney gives gun manufacturers, distributors and gun dealers immunity from most civil negligence and product liability actions. That was described that year as the 'mother of all laws' because what it does is to make an entire industry immune to law suits.
I therefore ask every reader the following question which is what industry on this planet is immune to law suits as a whole? I ask any reader to name one. I then ask major media outlets to take hold of this article, and to run with it. I then ask the POTUS to do the same thing. I especially ask the people in Congress to do the same thing.
Because by mentioning talking points such as they do today, that is just a product of the problem. It is NOT the root of it. In reality, there are only two scientific constants to every killing with a gun and that is the gun itself and the bullet used to do it. Everything else is a part of the problem and again, there is no real science behind it. Plus, every other issue behind every gun death, varies (i.e.: racism, general mental behavior issues, the magazine a gun holds, the type of a gun, people in general etc. are the reason given as talking points about why whomever kills anything). I will say it one more time. The ONLY scientific thing regarding every killing, murder, injury are the gun and the bullet itself.
Let me assume that no one is going to believe that we Americans are going to get rid of every gun and / or every bullet.
However, I myself say and the Representative Adam Schiff believe that his bill is needed to be passed as a way to allow suits to go forward when these entities are found to be negligent, or for product liability issues, let alone for selling a gun or any weaponry in a corrupt way (i.e.: knowingly selling guns and bullets to someone that you know will use it for a crime).
Since 2005, "numerous cases around the nation have been dismissed on the basis of PLCAA even when the gun dealers acted in a fashion that would qualify as negligent if it involved any other product," Schiff said in a letter to House colleagues seeking support for his bill. "The victims in these cases are denied the right to even discover and introduce evidence of negligence.
(Adam) Schiff goes on to say that his "bill will reinstate the intent of PLCAA, allowing civil cases to go forward against irresponsible actors" "Letting courts hear these cases would provide justice to victims while creating incentives for responsible business practices that would reduce injuries and deaths. At the same time, my bill will provide protection for gun companies who are sued when they do not act negligently, which was the purpose of PLCAA."
And, I agree with that 100%. With such a law in place, the incentive to not sell any old product to anyone would help root out a lot of these issues we face today. Certain people would not have a 13 gun arsenal in its hands (Authorities say dead suspect had more than a dozen firearms, including six recovered from the crime scene.). Schiff added that current law only protects the "worst actors in the industry," and said that "good gun companies" and I say gun sellers "don't need special protection from the law; bad companies don't deserve it."
Schiff's bill is co-sponsored by 11 other house Democrats, including Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). It has been dead since it was placed into action in January 2013. There have been thousands of people killed with guns and bullets since that day.
Schiff also introduced another bill that would create a new, two-year sentence for "straw purchasers" of firearms, or people who are buying weapons for people who cannot pass a background check. He states that "the laws currently on the books targeting straw purchasers of firearms don't treat it as anything other than a paperwork violation." He also states that "we need to crack down on those who are buying weapons with the express purpose of providing them to those who can't pass a background check" and that "straw purchasing is not a 'paperwork' violation — it's a serious crime that has led to a horrendous increase in criminal access to firearms."
Our culture that is geared towards guns is fine to have in America. However, we Americans have lost our responsibility to do it.
CNN reported the other day about American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence which they spelled out to everyone in one graph:
*Includes the following domestic terrorism incidents:
September 11 attacks (NY, DC, PA) 9/11/01
2001 Anthrax attacks (DC, NY, CT, FL) Oct., Nov. 2001
El Al counter shooting (California) 7/4/02
Beltway sniper attacks (DC, Mid-Atlantic) Oct. 2002
Knoxville church shooting (Tennessee) 7/27/08
Pittsburgh police officers killed (Pennsylvania) 4/4/09
Tiller abortion clinic (Kansas) 5/31/09
Holocaust Museum shooting (DC) 6/10/09
Fort Hood shooting (Texas) 11/5/09
Plane crash into Austin IRS building (Texas) 2/18/10
Fort Stewart Army base killing (Georgia) 12/10/11
Sikh Temple Shooting (Wisconsin) 8/7/12
St. John's Parish police ambush (Louisiana) 8/16/12
Boston Marathon Bombing (Massachusetts) 4/15/13
LAX Shooting (California) 11/05/13
Think about the money we spend on every year to combat terrorism compared to what we spend every year to combat Gun violence in America.
I ask every reader to understand that simple fact. I ask every reader to think about it that way. Either we need to cut down what we spend on terrorism or we need to have an equalling out affect to happen fast.
This POTUS (Barack Obama) stated the other day after the latest mass shooting was his 15th press release on them.
I must also add that same day 4 people in the city of Philadelphia were killed at the same time this news story broke, yet there was no mention about it on any news outlet, except for the local ones surrounding the city of Philadelphia.
Regardless of that happening in Philly that same day without the media taking hold of it, Obama did say that "the reporting is routine." Obama went on to say that his "response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation in the aftermath of it. We've become numb to this." He then went on to ask all news organizations to tally up the number of Americans killed through terrorist attacks in the last decade and compare it with the number of Americans who have died in gun violence.
Accordingly to the writers at CNN, and them using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
And, that according to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.
In addition, CNN compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.
That is not normal how we think about the two issues here. We get free reign to spend whatever to thwart terrorism which I respect, we also have lost so many civil liberties in the process but then again, the same goes to try thwart gun violence. Mat Welch from Reason stated on the real Time With Bill Maher show Friday night that was why initially, that the 'stop and frisk' laws were set in place in most major cities in America. I think in either case that if one has nothing to hide, than it is mostly OK, however for the [people that do have things to hide, it is not good for the likes of them.
There have been 3 lawsuits to attempt to hold gun makers, sellers liable for shootings in 2015 so far. There was a legal complaint set up in Newtown, Connecticut after that horrid shooting and that lawsuit is relating the death of children with violence. The complaint tells about of the dead children throughout it. Jesse Lewis, 6, an only child, loved riding horses. His last meal was an egg sandwich with hot chocolate. Dylan Hockley, 6, loved garlic bread and the moon. His favorite color was purple. Benjamin Wheeler, 6, wanted to be an architect, a paleontologist or a lighthouse keeper. The three died Dec. 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza opened fire inside Sandy Hook Elementary School.
They did the same thing describing the murdered people in Oregon this week when they read the names of those victims. They prefaced every one of them with something they believed in and liked to do. One was an animal activist if I remember correct but regardless of those tactics if you will, the suit had been filed in federal court in Connecticut in January, Soto et al. v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC. That is one of several lawsuits making their way through the court that seek money damages from gun shops and manufacturers. However, other than talking about the likes of the victims and what they did for the world, these cases have no weight per se and it is because of a decade-old federal law that I mentioned above (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) and that gives the gun industry total immunity to never be sued.
Here’s a look at the law:
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
President George W. Bush along with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sign the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields the firearms industry from civil lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, on Oct. 26, 2005, in Washington. The legislation at the core of gun lawsuits is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Signed into law by President George W. Bush and by Dick Cheney in 2005. That law restricts there from being any civil lawsuits set up by crime victims against gun makers and sellers.
It first came about after the DC Killings when there were many law suits filed and therefore, the gun industry challenged a series of setbacks because of them. Among them was a suit brought up in New York City claiming how gun manufacturers and sellers had allowed their weapons to be sold in illegal markets, creating a public nuisance, and 2002 California legislation explicitly allowing suits against gun manufacturers.
The gun industry claimed at that time how civil law suits had cost it more than $100 million, and members of Congress began to voice concern about the fate of military weapon suppliers if the entire industry went bankrupt. “Where will our soldiers get the arms they need to protect our freedoms?” asked Rep. Candice S. Miller, R-Mich., according to the Los Angeles Times. “From France? From Germany?”
The law put the National Rifle Association against gun safety organizations. In the Washington Post that year, it had stated that the legislation “barely pretends to be anything other than a special-interest gimme designed to shield the gun industry from lawsuits.”
The debate was that if gun manufacturers and retailers are not held responsible, who pays when a mass shooting or another gun tragedy happens? It was stipulated back then in 2005.
Then, with the Newtown massacre of those kids and when other mass shootings occurred, was when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act. That would then hone in that law enacted in 2005 law by then allowing suits when manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers are negligent in the ways described in this article.
That law “denies the victims of gun violence and their families their day in court, and in doing so it protects the worst actors in the gun industry,” Schiff said.
The current law does include a few exceptions that allow gun manufacturers and retailers to be held liable: (1) when a manufacturer or seller knowingly falsifies federal or state records about the gun (however, it is against the Federal Law to alter or change any Federal Court Document or State Court Document anyway), (2) when a manufacturer or seller sells a gun to someone who they know is prohibited from having a gun (that means nothing without any national background check registry set in place), and (3) when a design defect directly results in property damage, physical injuries or death (which is negated because of the guns are manufactured today and is very hard to prove).
The exceptions of this is in the sates of Connecticut, Wisconsin and Alaska.
Currently, there are three cases being seen today and that were brought forth which are:
1. The Newtown suit
Two years after Adam Lanza went into the Sandy Hook Elementary School to for some reason, killed what were 20 children and six school staff members, the victims’ families announced plans to sue file suit against the manufacturer of the gun Lanza used, a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. They also added that the shop that sold the gun to Lanza to be part of that suit. The complaint, accuses the manufacturer and the seller total "disregard of the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement.” The Plaintiff's stated in the complaint how the gun maker and store owner should have known "that people unfit to operate the weapons would gain access to them." Most notably in that case, the plaintiff's state that, "Bushmaster should have known of the “unreasonably high risk” that the rifle would be used in a mass shooting."
They state how the AR-15 is designed as a "military weapon, engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” and that how its design of it features “exceptional muzzle velocity, the ability to accommodate large-capacity magazines, and effective rapid fire.”
Both the Plaintiff's involved in that law suit and The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry that happens to be also located in Newtown, have not commented on the lawsuit to any media outlet covering it. The NRA also did not respond to anything with regard to that law suit and let alone about the suit that that they most likely feel should be shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act legislation.
The Newtown case takes a different approach than many other law suits vs. gun sellers and directed at the gun manufacturing industry.
It focuses on negligence by the seller and by the manufacturer. And, it focuses on why we have assault types of weaponry readily available for sale to the general public. The legal angle is how it is negligent to allow assault styled weapons like we use at war and during war's pose a danger to a person not trained to use it. "While other lawsuits have focused on problems with the sale of a gun, this one claims that by introducing the Bushmaster AR-15 gun into the marketplace, the manufacturer should be held liable."
This is the first time this has been raised in any court system. Many legal experts have raised doubts on the lawsuit’s chances of success. Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University states that “it’s almost exactly the sort of claim that the legislation was designed to prevent,” I think it keeps the conversation going but at the same time, no one really talks about the suit today. Even the victims families that were interviewed this week on major media outlets never said one word about it.
2. The Badger Guns case
In April this year, a gun lawsuit hit the courts in Wisconsin. The Norberg et al. vs. Badger Guns Inc. et al., is set forth because of injuries occurring when two Milwaukee police officers who were shot in 2009 by an 18-year-old kid named Julius Burton. They tried to pull him over for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk and were somehow shot because of it. The officers say that Badger Guns, is liable because the store should have known it was illegal to sell the handgun to an underage kid at the time. The under aged kid was however, with a friend that happened to be 21 years old. The lawsuit is set up because the gun store owner and sales person should have known that buyer of the gun was the under aged kid which had been stipulated clearly on the purchase slip. On that slip, it was written that the 21-year-old was not the buyer of the gun, let alone would not have been the owner.
The gun shop's defense is that that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects it from any liabilities in such a claim.
The officers claim how “it was a straw buy,” and how it's “our contention that there were plenty of legitimate red flags that surround the purchase.”
This Badger Guns gained national notoriety in 2005 when federal data showed it was the nation’s top seller of guns linked to crimes (537 of its guns were recovered by police). In that claim, the Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Conen ruled in favor of the officers in January 2014. It found the claim met one of the exceptions of the legislation, clearing the way for the upcoming trial.
3. A challenge in Alaska
This claim is basically a wrongful death lawsuit. In 2006, Simone Kim was fatally shot while painting at a Juneau supermarket. Later, a drifter named Jason Coday was convicted in the killing. The Kim family filed a wrongful death suit, alleging that a gun dealer illegally sold Coday the gun without a proper background check. The lawsuit alleges that Coday went to Rayco Sales and walked out with the gun after putting $200 on the counter as a bribe to be able to get it.
The gun shop owner told a very different story saying that when Coday came into the store, that he wasn’t interested in buying a gun that day. Coday evidently then put on his backpack as if he was going to leave the store, that the seller then walked away from the area. It was told that the gun shop employee saw the $200 in cash on a counter later on, and and he then realized that the gun had been stolen by Coday from the counter. It was also told that the gun seller quickly began to search for Coday and that he was not to be blamed for the bribery and/or the negligence.
Therefore, did Coday steal the gun without the sales clerk's knowledge or was there a bribe in action? Either way, there is negligence but one is willful knowledge and one was just for walking away while guns lay down on the counter with the great ease to swipe. A trial judge eventually dismissed the claim because its ruling was that of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. However, it was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court that then ruled the case could go forward, saying it was not barred if the gun was sold illegally without the seller doing a background check. It went back to the trial courts in Alaska.
It does turn out that licensed gun dealers have a protection that no other gun dealer has because think about it this way, if someone walks into anyone's house to steal their guns when it is not locked up in a safe manner, and then they take those guns to shoot people or to use it in crimes, whomever can indeed be sued for negligence.
Conversely, if it is a licensed gun dealer, and somebody does that to them, they would be protected by this law.
Overall, this issue needs to dealt with by the root. Which is by law. If we start by fixing that law, we can then start to place together the other pieces of it. Like doing national background checks. Like changing up the gun show loop hole and like to not allow there to be assault weapons sold to the general public. Until then, it will not stop. And, I will realize that no one is serious about gun safety issues.
Because i maintain that any firm believers of that antiquated 2nd amendment (which the forefathers that enacted our amendments wrote them up to be altered and amended; it does not have to be written in stone so to speak like people make it out to be), have lost their privilege today. There is nothing wrong with a responsible gun manufacturer, gun seller and gun user. That's is not what this aimed to be against. It is for the corrupt people. Besides, if "Corporations are People Too My Friends," those corporations that make guns and sell them, should have morals too. It should nit be only about that other Amendment (14th) where it is only about creating as much profits and with as much profit margin as possible. I maintain there should be a moral fiber to that amendment too.
Also and occasionally, a lobbying client may refer to a bill number from a previous Congress, either in error or because they are lobbying on a bill that has not yet been assigned a number. In these cases, it will appear as though they are lobbying on the bill sharing that number in the Congress in which they are filing, which in most cases is a different bill entirely.
To see more information about the bill the client is lobbying on, you can look at the specific report under the "Report images" tab below on the lobbying client's profile page.
Here is a list of them from 2014 at the Center for Responsive Politics:
Bill Number
|
Congress
|
Bill Title
|
No. of Reports & Specific Issues*
|
|---|---|---|---|
113
|
Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013
| ||
113
|
Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act
| ||
113
|
Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013
| ||
113
|
Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
| ||
113
|
Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013
| ||
113
|
Promoting Healthy Minds for Safer Communities Act of 2014
| ||
113
|
Pause for Safety Act of 2014
| ||
113
|
Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act
| ||
113
|
Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2013
| ||
113
|
Pause for Safety Act of 2014
| ||
113
|
Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act
|
And, here is a list of them from 2015:
Bill Number
|
Congress
|
Bill Title
|
No. of Reports & Specific Issues*
|
|---|---|---|---|
114
|
Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Real Education for Healthy Youth Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Securing Access to Rural Postal Services Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public health.
| ||
114
|
Safe and Responsible Gun Transfer Act
| ||
114
|
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Pause for Safety Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
| ||
114
|
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Look-Alike Weapons Safety Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015
| ||
114
|
Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015
|
If you believe that there is an error, please e-mail the Center for Responsive Politics at info@crp.org. They will attempt to correct it.
And, finally New Rule – Martyrs Without a Cause!
| Web Exclusive New Rule - Board Ultimatum |
Most Americans of a certain age were still weeping and playing their scratched copies of Hunky Dory when someone on Twitter dug up an interview a retired groupie named Lori Mattix gave VH1 a few years ago in which she said she lost her virginity to Bowie when she was 15. As was the custom in 1972. To hear Lori tell it, it was one of the greatest events of her life. She was a willing partner, he was wearing a kimono, they were in a suite at the Hyatt House, there was champagne and hash... so what if she was 15? She had a better deflowering than 99 percent of humankind. But according to the social justice warriors of Twitter and Tumblr, as well as websites like The Establishment (“Remembering Bowie: the Man, the Legend, the Sexual Abuser”) Bowie’s 50-plus year career can be boiled down to: he was a rapist.
Never mind that Lori Mattix called the experience “fabulous.” Modern feminism has spoken, and it knows better than Lori Mattix knows how Lori Mattix should feel.
