Is Something Delayed also Something Denied?

In the wake of the heinous decision by the SCOTUS to declare part of the Voter’s Rights Act of 1965 as invalid, as well as voting to limit Affirmative Action, and then to grant federal recognition of gay marriage but not a corresponding recognition by states that outlaw it, Progressives have once again been drawn in by a conservative Republican-affiliated Court to believe that gains are being made.  YES, there is some hope in the fact that federal rights to marriage equality are Court approved.  This is a recognition that one type of marriage -- heterosexual marriage -- cannot remain the only norm in a free society, just as past bans against interracial marriages in certain states could not survive forever.  

However, according to Wikipedia, “In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2001 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.”

It took about 34 years for all the states to undo those outrageous laws on interracial marriage.  This should give great pause to those who say the Court has taken a huge step in declaring DOMA unconstitutional and setting the requirement for the federal government to abide by their ruling.  What this Court has really done is to recognize a right to marriage for all persons as to federal protections and judgments, but has delayed justice once again by not ruling that states have to comply.  The Conservative Court has spoken with forked tongue and granted rights at one level while denying them at another level in order to protect “states’ rights.”  And why? Because they know from past experience that, in spite of public opinion moving toward acceptance of gay marriage and gay rights, the full implementation of all those rights will be a matter of future history because they chose not to invalidate the ability of state legislatures to determine marriage laws in their (shall we say it?) sovereign states! 

I’m going to venture to say that the cadre of conservatives on the SCOTUS knew what they were doing.  First they attacked civil rights, and to blunt that attack, they put out a decision that looked like a great victory for the gay community.  It had the desired effect -- the attack on voting rights received little press, even though small-minded legislators in several states went right to work crafting legislation that will limit voting rights of minorities in their states.  Secondly, as if by plan, the Justices did that which has worked so many times in the past: they declared a law unconstitutional, but delayed justice so that full implementation could be denied for as long as possible.  As with the abolition of slavery, as with the declaration that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional, thus with segregation and school integration,  thus with Roe v. Wade and the constant delay of full rights to choose, exemplified by the latest Texas attempt at restricting abortion and the restrictive Ohio abortion law that just passed there.  In all these cases, and many more, the result is that justice delayed is justice denied!  They knew what they were doing!

This is just one more reason to be a discouraged Progressive. There are many others, of course.  And, although I hate to do it, let us take some time to remind ourselves that Conservatives have a very different view of the world around them than do Progressives, which results in what the radical Right is doing to undermine progressive and common sense values. 

1. Conservatives are tied to a view of  rugged individualism.
2. They believe in a social Darwinism that implies that only the strong should survive; that individuals must take personal responsibility for their own development and their own prosperity
3. They believe that central government should be at the least restrained and at the most weak and unable to intervene or interfere in the day-to-day lives of individuals.
4. They therefore hold to a view of the states as being sovereign, or at least being  “laboratories” where one should determine to what extent and by what method government should assist and support its citizens
5. They believe that all government is potentially evil; that it can turn upon the people at any moment, and take away our god-given (or constitutionally provided) rights and privileges.  Thus, they advocate the unalienable and unrestricted right of citizens to bear arms so they can be prepared to defend themselves against rogue government action.
6. Conservatives believe in a system that should be as tax-free as possible, but they know that neither state nor federal government can exist without taxation of some kind.  And so, they advocate as few taxes, and the lowest tax rates, that one can make possible.  Not only do they want to lower current income tax rates, they want to abolish our current tax system and replace it with a consumer tax, a flat tax, or a two-tier tax system.
7. Then, they believe that all other taxes must be abolished (or drastically reduced), including: corporate income taxes, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, tax on interest earnings, etc.
8. Although they believe in the individual, they happen to believe that there are certain individuals who are more worthy than others of government support and largess.  While touting the importance of government incentives for small businesses and huge tax breaks for large corporations, they are more than willing to limit government programs that support the disabled, the homeless, the unemployed, the college student, the returning veteran, the poor and the sick.  In other words, the richest 2% get special treatment because they have proven themselves to be the kind of individuals one would want running things (the fact that they have money to spend on members of the Congress, doesn’t hurt their standing!)
9. Conservatives have a world view in which patriotism is at the top of their list of values.  Individuals must come together to support their country, especially in conflicts with other nations.  But individual citizens must also be willing to sacrifice on behalf of their country (unless it involves them).  The Republicans have a great deal of difficulty with the concept of peace or peaceful negotiation as the way to co-exist with other nations on this planet.
10. This leads inevitably to a view of our nation as “exceptional.”  And that is the view of this Republican party.  However, once one accepts that view, it leads to all kinds of delusions: that our nation should be regarded as the best in all things; that our nation is the leader of the free world; that our nation must be supported even when it holds views, practices or policies that are detrimental to other nations (“our country right or wrong”); that we should be at War, rather than making peace because we are exceptional, they are not.  Pro-active war with rogue or out-of-line nations (or terrorist groups) is a result of an “America first above all” approach to foreign relations.  Constant talk of “war” in this country is a trap and a killing machine.  We sacrifice more of our “best and brightest” than I care to recall: in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and places like Bosnia and Serbia, Korea; but we also sacrifice their lives in places like  Somalia, Grenada, and Lebanon.

It’s when Conservatives act on their world view that I get nervous.  When they act out, or when they act like they’re crazy, it’s best that Progressives understand that they really don’t care what anyone thinks!  They have gone off the edge of reason and sanity, and are verging on a coup d'état.  They are no longer the “Party of Lincoln”, nor the Party of Barry Goldwater, nor even-  God help us - the Party of Ronald Reagan.  This party has moved so far to the Right that one has to expect that they will stop at nothing to gain control of state and federal governments so that they can twist and shape them to support their view of what the nation, and the world, should look like.  Let us list the ways:

• Control certain districts.  Their strategy is to gerrymander not only congressional districts, but state legislature districts, so that some will be perpetual winners for the Republicans.
• Control enough state legislatures and governorships to keep radical conservatism alive and well within the states
• Use decisions by the Supreme Court that favor states’ rights, to delay, overturn, ignore federal mandates in many areas: social welfare, housing, public education, etc.
• Control how social issues (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, women’s issues, minorities, etc.) are dealt with by controlling the make-up of the state governments
• Use big money as the key to winning elections at all levels; above all, do not give in to election reform advocates
• Oppose and undo all legislation that protects the vulnerable and the “lower” and middle classes (health care, women’s rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, voting rights, student loans, social welfare such as food stamps, consumer advocacy) and force people to be responsible individuals who must achieve success by their own actions
• Where possible, devolve to the states all responsibility for programs that touch people’s lives where they live such as those mentioned just above
• Make “religion” a major concern in order to control the world-view of the masses; in other words, these radicals are not concerned with the rituals of religion being foisted on society; they want to control what gets spoken, what gets taught, what gets valued. Take the ritual of prayer, for instance. They use the ritual of prayer to teach their values. They are not in favor of just putting “religion” or Christianity”  or “prayer” back into the classroom or the school or as part of national celebrations; they are concerned with controlling, as much as they can, how people think, and what they believe.
• They want a “protestant ethic” to underlie our government which will spread it’s concepts of rugged individualism, personal responsibility, survival of the fittest, heterosexual families and lifestyle, and private relief efforts (good Samaritan approach) throughout the land.  Their concept of religion and their worldview are synonymous.
• Use the Supreme Court to take away “rights” won during the Civil Rights era.  The Court has done their bidding by saying that certain things like ‘affirmative action’ and voting protections are obsolete.  They have opened the way to voting discrimination laws in the states; to lack of minority participation in higher education, and to a view that civil rights advocacy is passé.
• Use well-worn phraseology to confuse the public (“death panels”; “Obamacare”, “welfare queens;”)  and to turn the citizenry that can be so cajoled, away from support for the President’s policy agenda.  It was pollster Frank Luntz who helped Republicans figure out the power of words like: “activist judges” “big government”    “class warfare” “climate change” (instead of “global warming”) “death tax” “Defense of Marriage Act” “energy exploration” (in place of “oil drilling”) “enhanced interrogation”      “family values”  “government-run health care” or “government takeover of health care” “illegal” (describing illegal immigrant) “job creators” “judicial activism” “partial birth abortion” “pro-life” “reform” (euphemism for “cut”) “teachers’ unions”  “right to life”  “right to work”  “tax and spend liberal” “War on Terror” “War on Drugs”

There is right now a central question for all Progressives to answer: what can we do to stop this juggernaut?

As Cole Lystra of Progressives United said recently: “We know our work will never be complete if we don't empower all Americans -- or those striving to become Americans -- to be full participants in our democratic process.  So we're setting Progressives United on an expanded new path, not just to continue our push for campaign and government reforms, but also to defend progressive policies and values wherever they are threatened by the influence of big money -- on issues like immigration reform, voter suppression, and the dominance of the gun lobby in Congress.

But as we look to broaden the promise of democracy, the barriers to full participation are startling:

• The far right wing of the Republican Party continues to fund and beat the drum of voter suppression in states across the country.
• The corporate gun lobby stalls even the most basic background-check reforms that 90% of Americans support.
• Extremists looking to block much-needed immigration reform at all costs frustrate our immigrant brothers' and sisters' struggle to weave into the American tapestry.

We can take on all of these worthy fights, and expand our progressive reach. “

Well, that’s all fine and good, but there are certain internal barriers to expanding Progressive efforts, based upon my experience with more than one national Progressive group of which I have been a member, or local leader.

• Progressives don’t work well in coalitions because their narrowly-defined issues are sacred to them in the groups they choose.
• Progressives have a hard time believing that there are genuine organized conspiracies on the Right and they often ignore remedies until its too late
• Progressives have been lax in formulating a plan of attack, although now President Obama’s grassroots campaign organization has been morphed into a non-profit, called Organizing For Action (OFA), one of whose aims is to bring community groups together into coalitions to attempt a concerted effort at combating right-wing views and activities.
• Progressives believe that intellectual honesty and persuasion are what matters.  They shy away from using “loaded terms” unlike the conservative Republicans.
• Progressives take a short view and don’t attempt longer-term strategies very often; like taking control of certain districts, or getting local boards and councils to pass resolutions supporting various progressive causes, such as overturning Citizens United and amending the Constitution.
• Progressives don’t seem to be able to carry on for very long without getting discouraged.  The same people in local organizations show up for all the rallies, speeches, vigils, and demonstrations; while recruitment for new members and activists falls apart because people respond with “I’m too busy right now”  “Got something else to do”, “I belong to so many organizations, I haven’t got time to give”
• Progressives seem to be somewhat “at sea” in using media to their advantage.

My conclusion is not completely formulated, for it is built around un-doing the negatives I have just mentioned.  Of course we must lessen or eliminate those negatives.  But as to the Positive: what can we do?  I confess I do not know the answer.  I can only list some thoughts here:

1. We must think long-term by amending our Constitution to reflect Progressive values and principles
2. We must protect civil and social rights
3. We have to elect progressive Democrats in 2014, or else a legislature - both houses of Congress controlled by a radical Right Republican majority - will begin the dismantling, not only of central government, but of programs and policies that now serve the vast array of our people.  It has already begun, as Sequestration was probably the greatest gift ever given to the radical Republicans!
4. We have to push for more involvement of ordinary citizens in our governmental processes (example: all commissions that re-draw districts after a census must be made up of non-office holders and seekers, with a bi-partisan spirit, who will draw lines fairly under the possible guidance of a judicial panel).
5. We will ultimately have to come together in some entity that gives us permanent status, such as the Tea Party has obtained.  There has to be a broad-based Coalition of Progressive groups in order to obtain what must be done.  There has to be a party platform; there have to be candidates who will support that platform; there will have to be a strong grass-roots party organization to have a say in which candidates are nominated to run.
6. We cannot continue to operate in a vacuum, as though the realities I have outlined today do not exist.  Paul Begala reports: “The Koch brothers’ notorious political arm is ramping up its vast right-wing money machine at breakneck speed. Just in the last 5 months, they’ve given a whopping $559,000 to dozens of national Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. That’s a new Koch record for this point in the campaign.”

We know that justice delayed, can often mean justice denied.  In this volatile atmosphere, where the Koch brothers can fund a conspiracy of the Right unknown in its depth to the Progressive Left, indecisive and uncoordinated action on our part is tantamount to victory denied.

Letter on Gun Violence Prevention

The following letter was written in response to a presumably legitimate inquiry from a gun owner and NRA member about the philosophy of a certain non-profit, issues-oriented organization.  As an advocate of gun violence prevention, I was asked to respond.  Although my response was not as long as the answer below, I now offer this as a reasonable response to a reasonable inquiry.  Names of people and organizations have been removed.  The original inquiry was as follows:

“I am just wondering what your organization is standing for. I am an avid gun owner/hunter and believe in my right to keep and bear arms. Now when you say "common sense" do you mean just that or are you against firearms in general?  I believe criminals should not have the right to own guns, but I don't believe that law abiding American gun owners should bear the burden. Most of the current legislation has done little to nothing to attack the criminals, but has made it more burdensome on the honest. How many drug dealers do you know that register their Military look-a-like guns or have to worry about renewing their pistol permit every 5 years. You can see where I am going with this, they don't because they are criminals. Therefore its only the law abiding citizen who is affected by such laws.  Please let me know where your organization stands on Gun Control and just what your definition of "Common Sense" actually means.”

 

Dear Inquirer:

Recently, I was asked by ________________, to send along some of my thoughts on your inquiry about his organization, and about the stance of his organization toward gun control.  First, let me explain that, although not a member of that organization, I am a member of another organization that often works with his group as co-sponsors of issue-oriented events and activities. So, I am speaking as a member of a particular group, but the opinions are mainly my own. Second, we are not gun-control advocates as much as we are advocates of gun violence prevention.

In answer to one of your questions -- "are you against firearms in general? " - I would answer absolutely not.  It is not our intent to limit legitimate access to guns and ammunition for the purposes of hunting, sporting events, contests, collection or even legitimate self-defense.  The second amendment right to bear arms is a well-accepted norm in both existing law and judicial decisions; we are not looking to overturn those basic rights.  Likewise, in answer to a second question, we are not in existence to increase any particular "burden" on legitimate gun-owners.   Present laws and requirements already impose a paperwork "burden," but that routinely comes along with any system of registration, application, or sale.  We are not sure what other "burdens" might come to legitimate gun-owners because of more stringent laws on background checks, for instance.  Please enlighten us if you know of something that would occur as a burden other than some additional paperwork for gun sellers. However, if you mean by this that legitimate gun owners would be having to be part of a national gun registry, that is a myth belied by the fact that pending legislation on expanded background checks specifically prohibits national gun registries.

We are in agreement with your statement that "criminals should not have the right to own guns."  We would add that there are probably others who should not own guns as well, including those shown to be violent toward others in ways that are clearly evident.  This gets into the whole area of the mental health system which is something that our organization is also ultimately concerned about, as that system does not currently have efficient and effective standards for sharing "mental health" information among practitioners in the mental health field, with law enforcement, universities or colleges, or even with relatives of those who demonstrate aberrant behaviors.  Nor is there an efficient and effective way for school, law enforcement and other legitimate providers and relatives to share pertinent information with the mental health care providers and with each other.  So, prevention of gun violence (and other forms of violence) also depends on an overhaul of our mental health system and its requirements, and abilities, for information-sharing. 

Criminals are those who disobey established laws.  Therefore establishing new laws does not insure that criminals will be stopped or that they will even be prosecuted because that is what criminals do:  they find ways to circumvent laws.  There are very few pieces of legislation that even attempt to stop all criminal behavior in a certain area, because they cannot.  Nor do most laws “target criminals.”  Rather they set standards and rules by which criminals can be arrested, charged, and prosecuted in the justice system.  Therefore, we agree with the premise that certain laws we propose - such as universal background checks - will not stop all criminal behavior in connection with gun violence.  However, such laws will provide law enforcement with stronger tools to prosecute those who disobey that law, will set new norms for society, and will have a lasting positive effect and influence on our culture of violence.  Those are some of the intended purposes of our proposals, and are about all that can be reasonably expected. 

Right now, under federal laws, background checks are limited in scope, as you know, in that they only apply to federally licensed gun dealers.  Even under that less-than-universal law, the current background check system since it started has kept over 2 million criminals and other dangerous people from buying guns at licensed dealers (according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Justice Department). We advocate for expanded background checks to close gun sale loopholes.  In fact, we support H.R. 1565 which is a replication of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment from the Senate, by which background checks would be required for all gun sales in commercial settings, including at gun shows, on the internet and in classified ads.  Private, unlicensed firearms sellers would be required to conduct these checks through licensed dealers using the same system (NICS) already in use for licensed dealer sales.  The bill would, however, exempt transfers of firearms between friends and family from such requirements. 

In answer to your main question, this is what we consider to be an example of "common sense" legislation.  One way to look at it is that this makes a "sound basic sense" that appeals to a broad range of people  with at least an average intelligence.  It doesn't have a lot of complicated language, but stresses a point that most people can understand: that we need to expand background checks to cover most gun sales.  In  this way we have a better chance at reducing gun violence by gun wielders who should not have access to guns in the first place.

But, there is a second meaning of "common sense" not often cited, that applies in this case most especially.  It is the definition of common sense as "pertaining to the whole community or public."  In the case of universal background checks, we have for some time now heard that up to 92% of the public, and around 84% of NRA members, favor this kind of legislation, feeling that it makes good sense.  To their discredit and peril as legislators, certain Senators thought they could simply ignore this expression of the "common sense" and they voted against the wishes of their constituency.  A few of those Senators have seen their positive poll numbers take a nose-dive, and are now feeling the heat of public pressure to change their vote or be fired by the electorate next year.   When a "common sense" develops among voters from across this country, it is not wise simply to ignore it.  This commonality is what has pushed our nation forward at certain critical times in our history, and we believe that one of those critical points has clearly been reached when the "common sense" about background checks must prevail.

Finally, let me add to these answers a bit of a personal note.  I come from a long paternal line of gunsmiths; some of whom started out as independent locksmiths and then switched to gun-making in their hometown of Birmingham England.  Those relatives include my great grandfather, at least three great granduncles and my grandfather.  An uncle and a cousin born in this country continued on that same occupational path.  Some of these men came to the States when they were quite young (in 1886 and 1888) to work in a series of gun factories, first in New York and New England; also in Ontario (where my grandfather came to work with his oldest brother in a company that had been transferred lock, stock and barrel from Norwich, CT).  My grandfather, one of his sons and another of his brothers, ended up their careers working for a Gun Company in my birthplace.  What is important to me is that these men were not only accomplished gunsmiths (three of whom served as superintendents of their factories at one time or another) but they were part of making gun manufacturing in this country a vital industry, and, when called upon, they used their skills and positions to build the munitions that helped win the Great War (WWI).  One of my granduncles worked for New England Westinghouse company in Springfield, MA that had a huge contract for rifles used to end the war; another worked for Henry Ford in his large plant in Highland Park, Michigan that ended up making munitions for the War.  My grandfather, before he immigrated to the U.S., was an Armorer Sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces that helped forge the way through France and Belgium into Germany to end WWI.  He was on the front lines in some heavy fighting and was a victim of mustard gas causing his early death in 1947.

I tell you all this because I want you to know that I am proud of my family's heritage.  I am proud of their commitment to sporting rifles, and wartime munitions-making.  I am equally proud of their achievements in their communities as Lodge leaders, as churchmen, as people one could always count on.  Although I have never owned a gun, and am part of a movement and organization that believes that every constitutional right comes with certain responsibilities; and, that every right must be restricted when that same right becomes abused or distorted and brings harm to others (such as yelling "Fire" in a closed theater), I am not about to abandon my heritage by helping to impose burdensome or unreasonable restrictions on legitimate gun owners. 

Therein lies something that my ancestors would never have understood: how could a very legitimate club called the National Rifle Association go from a sportsman's club to an advocate of allowing absolutely no restrictions on military assault rifles, made-for-battle ammunition clips, and the right to carry concealed weapons wherever you please, plus an outright opposition to the saving of innocent lives by a system of universal background checks?  My ancestors would be appalled because they knew in their own lives that the right to bear arms meant sport and target-shooting, collection and competition, and self-defense.  They would not have understood absolute gun and ammunition rights advocacy that endangers the lives of innocent children and young people, as well as adults.  In other words, they would not have understood the NRA’s obsession with a totally unrestricted second amendment that allows harm and death to come to innocent citizens at the hands of violence-prone, mentally unstable, or criminally-intentioned gun owners.  Such illegitimate gun ownership would not make "common sense" to them, nor does it to me.

I hope this explanation has been helpful to you.

 

Sincerely yours,

Definitions of “Scandal”

How much longer do we have to endure the specter of “scandal” created by the champions of scandal: the Republican Party? 

Take a quick look at the Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. of Virginia, Bishop E.W. Jackson, and a few of his better-known scandalous quotes:

1. On gay people: “Their minds are perverted, they’re frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally and they see everything through the lens of homosexuality. When they talk about love they’re not talking about love, they’re talking about homosexual sex.” “Homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, it destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of…”
2. On Planned Parenthood and the KKK: “Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was. And the Democrat Party and the black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”
3. On liberals and the KKK: “Liberalism and their ideas have done more to kill black folks whom they claim so much to love than the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and slavery and Jim Crow ever did, now that’s a fact.”
4.  On Obama’s Muslim sensibilities: “Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of ‘The Muslim World’ is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world.”

Such remarks are a good “fit” with the original definition of the word “scandal” which had to do with the “unseemly conduct of a religious person that discredits religion.”  Asked if Jackson was trouble, another senior Virginia Republican responded, “Oh. My. God. Yes.” The danger, the Republican said, is that “Jackson will bring Democrats to the polls who might otherwise stay home. You just don’t want one candidate to rile up the base of the other side. That’s what you’re trying to avoid.”  
 
Another definition of “scandal” is: “malicious gossip; defamatory or slanderous talk.”  So, in essence, that means that the hearings being held by a third of the committees in Congress are scandalous.  That’s exactly what I mean.  Since every hearing that has been held has included malicious gossip (or ignominious innuendo) and defamatory or slanderous talk on the part of certain members, we can safely say that their rhetoric fits with this definition, and that they, themselves, are the “scandal.”  Let’s take a brief look at one example.

Darrell Issa called Jay Carney a "paid liar" this week.  According to The National Journal, Issa’s aggressive approach is just what the Republican House leadership wants.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor singled out Issa for praise at a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Tuesday. Hours later, Cantor gave him plaudits on national television, saying on CNN that Issa and other GOP chairmen investigating the IRS were doing “a fantastic job.” 

The National Journal continues: Democrats say Issa has prejudiced the IRS investigation by declaring on CNN on Sunday that the targeting “was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters and we're getting to proving it.” Issa, they argue, is following his well-worn path of lobbing accusations first and then searching for evidence to back them up later.  “It’s hard to trust someone who makes assertions on which he has no basis to make [them],” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Tuesday.

In addition, says the Journal, Democrats complain of Issa’s selective use of evidence to bolster pre-conceived “gut” feelings. On Sunday, Issa released only selected chunks of the transcribed interviews that his panel and the Ways and Means Committee had conducted with IRS officials. And he shared the excerpts on national television before giving a copy to committee Democrats—a breach of decorum and protocol, Democrats say.  Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the oversight panel… before a recent Benghazi hearing, had accused Issa of keeping panel Democrats in the dark about interviews with a key State Department witness, Mark Thompson. “They have leaked snippets of interview transcripts to national media outlets in a selective and distorted manner to drum up publicity for their hearing,” Cummings said at the time.

Basically, Republicans agree, without much dissent, that Issa is the poster boy for their efforts to unearth so-called scandals.  He is helping to forge a tableau of an overreaching, overbearing, and unaccountable executive branch—all without real notable proof that any scandal exists, other than his own scandalous behavior.   In like manner, let us use Issa as the quintessential illustration of the scandalous activity of many Republican committee members and move on rather than citing numerous similar examples from other committees.

Instead, let’s stand back a bit and ask, what do we really have here?  In my estimation, it is nothing more than the imperfections of bureaucracy that are omnipresent, and the lack of clear definition of certain policies that have been assumed to be adequate when they aren’t.  What do I mean?

First of all: you can’t run a government accurately, efficiently or effectively when many of your agencies are run by interim directors and deputies.   That is clearly the fault of Senate Republicans who have held up approvals for Obama appointees at alarming rates.  There are still over 1,080 appointments waiting confirmation from the Senate, many of which are appointments to the federal judiciary.  But, among appointments critical to functioning of Executive departments and agencies, we find the following examples:

Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection and Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology
Under Secretary of the Air Force
Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances – EPA
Under Secretary for management – DOState
Asst. Administrator of Office for Water – EPA
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services – DOEd
U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund
Asst Attorney General for Justice Programs
Administrator EPA
General Counsel Treasury
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Energy – DOEn
Secretary of Labor – DOL
Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Associate Attorney General

The IRS is a sterling example of this destructive delaying tactic.  First, Obama had to deal with a Bush leftover appointee, Douglas Shulman.  Then he had to settle for another interim appointment, Steven Miller.  And now that Miller has also resigned in light of the Cincinnati office debacle, another interim appointment has been made (Daniel Werfel of OMB), as the Huffington Post reminds us --because his choice for the permanent IRS director’s position has been delayed in the Senate.  “The Senate has not yet confirmed a full-time commissioner since Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee, stepped down this past fall.”

Second, you cannot allow policies from one administration to govern the actions of another administration unless those policies have been thoroughly examined, evaluated and adjusted or amended to fit the philosophy and tenor of the new administration.  I fault the Obama administration for allowing certain Bush era policies, established in the context of, or under the influence of 9/11 to have continued without this thorough vetting.  The right-wing obsession with surveillance, hawkishness and control is all too evident in the Patriot Act and subsequent immigration legislation and policy than can be tolerated.  I believe that the balance between the rights of citizens and the necessity of controlling terrorist actions and activities was upset during the Bush years, and should have been modified considerably during an Obama administration.  Instead, for instance, deportations of illegal aliens increased; surveillance procedures at airports were increased to absurd levels, and use of surveillance of phone records and other private communications was continued without much scrutiny until recent revelations. 

Third, this obsessive investigation of so-called “scandals” within the Obama administration is nothing more than Republican revenge for his victory in 2012 at the polls.  This is a vigorous attempt to destroy his legacy, not because he is a Democrat, but because he is a black Democrat.  The bigots and racists have come forth to fight for their white supremacy views so that, essentially, an African-American candidate in future will find it very tough-going in a general election for this highest office.  This is no longer just about President Obama.  It is now about trying to destroy the legacy of inspiration he has already left with young people of many ethnic origins, including African and Hispanic.

Finally, it is important to say that this whole manufactured scenario of “scandals” not only diverts the public’s attention from the real issues of jobs, economy, infrastructure, climate change, immigration reform, gun violence prevention, the shrinking middle class, homelessness, treatment of returning veterans, plus much more. It also tends to skew the vision of voters in terms of the invasiveness of government.  Even though people’s lives are not being negatively affected by the “scandals” (because our government is mainly there for the protection and care of people), unthinking numbers of voters tend to believe that government is “overreaching” or “interfering” or “disrupting” their lives.  This, in spite of the fact that life goes on much as it did before Benghazi, the IRS missteps in Cincinnati, the collection of AP press phone numbers, and anything else that has garnered the unseemly attention of Republicans in the Congress. 

The point is, these so-called scandals are not encroaching on the well-being of Americans.  We are not living in a punitive state where rights are largely ignored, people are arrested for no cause, property is being confiscated, and the government is watching every move.  It just isn’t happening no matter who tries to make it seem so.  Think about it: if government (the Executive Branch) were as evil or as interventionist as Congressional Republicans like to claim, legislators would be the FIRST to feel its effects, because that is what a run-amuck Executive would do – close down the legislature and get rid of all the legislators!!

Take to heart another quite important definition of “scandal”:  “any act, person or thing that offends or shocks moral feelings of the community and leads to disgrace.”  You want scandals; I’ll give you some examples of disgraceful scandals:

Head Start cutbacks 
All the other sequestration cutbacks affecting children, seniors, the poor, first responders, research, veterans, etc.
The attack upon public education, especially teachers
The Ryan Budget, and the vouchering of Medicare
Un-prosecuted denizens of Wall Street
Attack upon women’s health and women’s rights
48 attempts by House Republicans to repeal Obamacare
No serious healthcare proposals by Republicans
Vote by House Republicans to cut funding to support citizenship rights of children of illegal immigrants
Attacks upon Labor and the right to collective bargaining
The defeat of the common-sense Toomey-Manchin Amendment, and all other gun violence prevention legislation, in spite of the fact that gun violence is a major cause of death for children and young people

These are just some of the real scandals in Washington, DC. There are many more disgraceful acts of Republican lawmakers about which we will comment in future.  For now, it is enough to remind ourselves that another scandal is about to hit:  the Congress will adjourn for the “umpteenth” time, in keeping with its intended schedule of just 126 work days during 2013!  Don’t you wish you could get that much time off, not have much to show for when you did work, and get the pay and benefits that Congress members get? 

The so-called “Scandals” in the Executive Branch pale in comparison to the clearly defined scandals being created everyday by a discredited Republican-controlled, do-nothing Congress!

Open Letter to Congressman Richard Hanna

June 1, 2013

Dear Congressman Hanna,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply of May 23, 2013.  I have been unable to answer until now and beg your pardon for such a delay.

Although I am not a gun owner, I am a descendant of many who were gunsmiths in their day: a great-grandfather who independently made locking mechanisms for gun-makers in Birmingham, England; a great-granduncle who was a gunsmith in the Gun Quarter of Birmingham England; a grandfather who came to Woodstock, Ontario to join his brother, a superintendent at Tobin Arms (which was transplanted from Norwich, Connecticut), in the trade; two granduncles who immigrated to this country from Birmingham, England to continue their work in the gun manufacturing business, and who worked for such companies as L.C. Smith in Syracuse, Hunter Arms in Fulton, Westinghouse Arms in Springfield, MA, Tobin Arms and Hopkins & Allen Arms in Norwich, Ct. One granduncle ended up in Ithaca, NY as a superintendent at the Ithaca Gun Company and one of my father’s brothers spent his whole career employed with that particular manufacturer, also ending up as a superintendent.  A cousin still works for the remnant of Ithaca Gun at King Ferry, NY. 

I say all this only to make sure you know that I have paternal blood coursing through my veins that impels me toward sympathy with the rights of gun owners: a right to the possession of firearms for the purposes of hunting and target-shooting and competition, and whatever sporting use, such as skeet shooting, can be found for them.  Certainly, as you do, I want to protect the legitimate rights of citizens to own guns and to use them in ways that are legitimate.  However, as you succinctly state, “it is clear that we need to keep maniacs and known criminals from owning guns.”  While I would not use the word “maniac” to describe those with mental illness (most of whom do not engage in violent behavior), I do agree that we need “a broad national dialogue on how we keep firearms out of the hands of disturbed individuals” and from those with aberrant behavior that could, at any time, be turned on innocent bystanders.

Actually, dialogue and discussion have been taking place for some time now, but continuous talk is “cheap” and actions must begin in order to set new standards, directions, and guidelines, just as we did when a “smoking is good for you” attitude prevailed although it was killing people left and right.  Now we must approach a culture steeped in a violence that is harmful to our health, and especially to the well-being of children and young people.  Mental aberrations are a contributing factor, video games another, wild west attitudes are another, and gangs willing to shoot rivals are another.  There are a multitude of factors that must be addressed in order to change a prevailing acceptance of a culture of violence. I agree with you that a place to begin is to work toward finding practical ways to prevent firearms getting into the wrong hands.  One of those practical ways, supported by over 90% of citizens in several polls, is to expand gun background checks from where such checks stand now under the Brady Act (covering only federally licensed dealers) to where most gun sales will be covered.

This is not the be-all, end-all of preventing gun violence.  It will not prevent all innocent individuals from being harmed by guns; it will not prevent all persons with aberrant behavior from acting out with guns; it will not prevent all criminals from owning guns.  It occurs to me that there is very little legislation designed to wipe out all the bad things that legislation often tries to address.  Legislation like this can only make a dent; a start; a needed new direction.  The best such legislation can do is to provide the police with a new law that can be enforced; to provide a law that will begin to change attitudes about gun violence; to provide a new atmosphere by which we can advance the cause of the importance of human life and the imperatives we are under to protect innocent life as much as we possibly can.  To do nothing is to allow the existence of a cancerous cultural norm of violence that is as harmful to our health as was smoking.    Yes, we must talk and debate; but, at the same time, we must act.

I commend you for acting as you already did, by voting for increased funding for NICS in the FY 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriation Act.  But as we both know, that particular Act passed the House, but not the Senate.  Therefore, while that vote was one I applaud, it failed (through no fault of yours) to “help to save lives and protect innocent Americans from harm by ensuring that firearms stay out of the hands of those prohibited to purchase them” because it did not pass.  Secondly, it was inadequate because it targeted the NICS which only federally licensed gun dealers are required to utilize, and it failed to close gun show loopholes or attempt to address other gun sales (such as online sales).  For this reason, along with many petition-signers from across your district, I encourage you to move ahead from a lost opportunity to one with more promise.  We have asked that you become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1565, the bipartisan bill on expanded background checks proposed by Peter King and Mike Thompson.

It appears that many of your colleagues have already moved beyond conversation regarding this issue.  The last time I checked, 178 had signed up to cosponsor this bill.  We call on you to do the same.  This issue will not go away, and you are not that far away from a positive position regarding this matter.  We again urge you to make the decision (a courageous one indeed) to cosponsor the King-Thompson legislation.  Thank you for listening.

 

While I have limited expectations regarding this request, I fervently hope that others will write similar letters to their congressmen, requesting similar action.  The point being, that further debate on the functionality of this particular issue – expanded background checks for gun sales – is unnecessary, and results in nothing more than a delaying tactic.  Join me, if you care to, in addressing YOUR congressman on this one facet of the gun violence debate.  Action and concrete results are long overdue – Publius

“Scandals” or Diversions?

It is common knowledge by now that fully ONE-THIRD of the Radical Right-controlled House committees are investigating the Obama administration.  The most important question to be raised currently is not: what did the Obama administration know and when did they know it?  The most important fundamental question to be asked is:  to what end? For what purpose are these hearings being held? 

I have heard it said that the answer to that question lies in the oversight function of the Congress.  According to Wikipedia:

“Although the Constitution grants no formal, express authority to oversee or investigate the executive or program administration, oversight is implied in Congress’s array of enumerated powers. Reinforcing these powers is Congress’s broad authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
“The authority to oversee derives from these constitutional powers. Congress could not carry them out reasonably or responsibly without knowing what the executive is doing; and whether officials are obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court has legitimated Congress’s investigative power, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties.
“The ‘necessary and proper’ clause of the Constitution also allows Congress to enact laws that mandate oversight by its committees, grant relevant authority to itself and its support agencies, and impose specific obligations on the executive to report to or consult with Congress, and even seek its approval for specific actions.  Inspectors general (IGs), for instance, report their findings about waste, fraud, and abuse, and their recommendations for corrective action, periodically to the agency head and Congress.”

Unfortunately, Congress takes advantage of this inherited power to play a political game of ‘cat & mouse.’  They are all too willing to use their “oversight power” to stir-up political issues and to harm politicians of the opposite party, than they are to find ways to solve or resolve problems.  Worst of all, they often fail to bring legislation forward to deal with problems, bureaucratic flaws and inefficiencies, or to change the procedures of government that sometimes get in the way of effective legislation and execution on behalf of the citizenry.

A perfect example of this exists right now in the three so-called “scandals” that have been brought to the attention of the public.  Although the Right can’t seem to find evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the White House, they rely on their usual tactics of innuendo, conspiracy theories, and character assassination to achieve their purposes which we shall enumerate later.  Fact-based rhetoric is not their strong suit!

1)    The Benghazi attack.  Radical Republicans would have us believe that the important things to know about this attack upon our embassy in Libya are:
--Why was it not referred to as a “terrorist attack“?
--Why did the administration use Susan Rice to put forward the story that an amateur video was to blame for the attack and not al Qaeda?
--Who gave her the talking points?  How were they fashioned?

--Why did the State Department refuse to use the military to aid the embassy while they were being attacked?  Who gave the order to stand down?
--Why didn’t the State Department. respond to a memo of need for embassy protection before this attack occurred?
--Did the Secretary of State have a part in this neglect?
--Why didn’t the President use the full might of our armed forces, in Libya (and Syria), to bring these people down and to help the rebels?

We could, of course, go on and on, as there are many more, mostly political questions, being raised by the radical right-wing ideologues.  In light of the many emails provided to the Committees, many of the questions have been answered.  Once again, the key to dealing with this issue is not to raise political “whodunit” questions so one can simply fix blame.  The issue for a legislative body must always be: what are the problems here and how can we fix them?  OR:  what can we do legislatively to solve the policy, procedural and budgetary problems that are at the heart of this incident?  So, some of the questions might be:

• What are the laws, rules, strategies, procedures, etc. that are supposed to apply to these types of situations?
• Do any of those laws and procedures need to be modified, repealed, amended, enhanced to help prevent this sort of thing from happening again?
• What are the underlying problems at our embassies that make our people vulnerable to attack? 
• What additional monies are needed?
• What is our current protocol about notifying State about inadequate protection?  Is that sufficient, or do we need a better protocol?
• What should our Mission be in other Mid-eastern countries that present such dangers to our embassies and personnel?
• What should our strategy be toward rebel groups in such countries?  Do we need a different strategy toward each country, rather than one-size-fits-all?
• What can Congress do, what can the Executive Branch do, what can State do to strengthen our presence in these middle-eastern countries, or do we need to find safer locations for our embassies and personnel?

These are fundamentally different questions than those being raised in Congressional hearings where blame, fault, missteps, political posturing, and political gamesmanship hold sway.  I predict that little will come from these “hearings” by all of these committees in the way of new resources, new strategies, new goals, effective new legislation or in terms of new spending to improve the dangerous situation for our overseas diplomats.  Because if you aren’t asking the right kinds of questions, you cannot get the right answers to fit the situation.

In contrast to these so-called ‘hearings’, a 2012 Government Accountability Office report by an independent review panel said serious lapses in management and leadership left the Libyan consulate badly unprepared.  Despite those deficiencies, the board determined that no individual officials ignored or violated their duties and recommended no disciplinary action.  Moreover, the panel called for a greater commitment from Congress to support the State Department's needs.  The Senate on Feb. 4, 2013  did approve legislation to allow the State Department to transfer $1.1 billion in surplus funds, no longer needed in Iraq, to improve security at U.S. embassies overseas in the aftermath of the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last September.  The bipartisan measure gave the department the authority to expedite construction of Marine security guard posts at overseas facilities, and to build secure embassies. 

The GAO report suggested that embassy security remains vulnerable so long as the State Department maintains missions in dangerous locations amid staffing shortages. President Obama’s new budget includes $4 billion to improve security at America’s more than 270 diplomatic posts worldwide. That includes a $2.2 billion boost–proposed by the Accountability Review Board–in State’s embassy security construction budget to fund new facilities in high-threat areas, but Congress has yet to approve the funding. (Michael Crowley report, May 08, 2013). 

Just as they did in 2011 and 2012, will the radical Republicans vote against an increase in funding for our embassies and their security?  Highly likely.

2)   The Associated Press.   Attorney General, Eric Holder, is once again being harassed by Darrel Issa’s Committee that Issa uses as his personal forum for attacking the Obama administration.  This so-called “scandal” is that the Department of Justice allegedly over-reached its bounds, and confiscated the personal phone numbers of certain Associated Press reporters in an attempt to find a leaker who let out certain classified information that could have endangered the lives of soldiers, diplomats, and covert agents. 

According to Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News:
“The Justice Department used a secret subpoena to obtain two months of phone records for Associated Press reporters and editors without notifying the news organization, a senior department official tells NBC News, saying the step was necessary to avoid "a substantial threat to the integrity" of an ongoing leak investigation”,  apparently in pursuit of the source of a leak about an al Qaeda bomb plot in Yemen.

The seizure of the phone records, is the latest move in a series of high profile and controversial investigations by the Justice Department of leaks of classified information. In a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder,  AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt said obtaining more than two months of AP phone records on 20 separate telephone lines without prior notice was a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into news-gathering operations.

However, Bill Miller, spokesman for Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.,  said in an email that the subpoena for the records was done by the book.  "Consistent with DOJ regulations, the department provided notification to the Associated Press of the receipt of toll records in a letter dated May 10, 2013." He noted that Justice regulations "do not require notification to the media prior to the issuance of legal process to obtain toll records."

In a separate email, Miller wrote: "Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”

We have here the possible conflict of a witch-hunt with a more reasoned approach to a fundamental matter in our democratic society: when is a subpoena necessary for records of  a sensitive nature?  And what are the bounds within which such a subpoena should operate?  Since the promulgation of the Patriot Act under the George W. Bush administration, there have been questions about intrusion into the rights and lives of many of our citizens.  That Law must now come under greater scrutiny to determine if it has over-stepped some important boundaries that speak to the freedoms we all enjoy.  The Congress needs to examine all other Acts that allow the government to somehow “get around” the Fourth Amendment.  Have we crossed over too many boundaries in our efforts to combat terrorist activity?

After all, the Constitution in Amendment IV has some very important things to say about searches and seizures:  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This is less of a “scandal” and more of a wake-up call to determine if we have misguided policies and procedures in place, even though the proper procedure was followed and nothing “illegal” occurred.  The questions that must be raised have less to do with who did what to whom, and who authorized it, than they do with how do we decide what is necessary for maintaining national security while protecting our constitutional rights?

Perhaps Congress needs to pay more attention to passage of a Media Shield law, especially those Republicans who have opposed or demurred about such legislation.

3)    The IRS scandal.  By now, this story seems to be the clearest of all, and the one of most concern to ordinary citizens.  USAToday sums it up:

“Washington's latest political scandal involves a little-known unit of the Internal Revenue Service that determines which groups don't have to pay taxes. Staff in that unit had singled out conservative political groups for greater scrutiny of their applications for tax-exempt status, an IRS official said last week.” 

The IRS says it subjected Tea Party-affiliated groups to additional scrutiny based solely on the name and stated goals of the organization. Often, those groups were asked invasive questions about their donor lists, affiliations and contacts with the media — questions not routinely asked of other groups.

This was prompted by the number of applications for tax-exempt social welfare organizations doubling from 2010 to 2012, to 3,400 a year. According to the IRS, that's largely because of a surge in politically oriented groups before the 2012 presidential election and in the wake of favorable court rulings. In response, an IRS unit in Cincinnati began to sort politically oriented groups into a separate "bucket" of applications. IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner said this was done for consistency.

The normal process for seeking tax-exempt status involves an organization filing an application and answering a 36-item questionnaire on its structure, purpose and activities. Based on those answers, the IRS may seek additional information.

Lerner said about 300 groups went into a "bucket" of applications getting more scrutiny. About a quarter of them were groups that had "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their names, she said. The others may have drawn scrutiny based on broader criteria that pulled out groups whose issues involved government spending or debt, or whose goals were critical of the government, according to a timeline provided to members of Congress.”

President Obama has called these actions outrageous and unacceptable,  and now those who did not conduct proper oversight and management are losing their jobs.  This is appropriate.  What is not appropriate is for Radical Republicans to imply and aver that the Obama White House directed that such activity take place.  The evidence for such accusations is just not there. 

What is evident, at least to me, is:

• The new head of the IRS has not been confirmed by the Senate, and so a Deputy Director, a career civil servant, was running the agency, and he was preceded by a Bush appointee 
• The 501(c) (3), (4), (5), (6) sections of the IRS code need in-depth scrutiny by the Congress and the White House.  These classifications leave much to be desired, and the restrictions regarding political activity are not clear nor do they have any “bite”
• There are not enough staff at IRS to handle the number of applications for 501 status
• IRS staff may not be adequately trained in their responsibilities
• Laws need to be changed to correct abuses, ensure training, protect the public; perhaps Congress should give serious consideration to the Disclose Act which they have not done heretofore.

In all these incidents, the Congress is failing in its responsibility to lead by legislating.  It is failing in its oversight responsibility to examine judiciously the underlying problems in a bipartisan manner.  It is failing in it’s responsibility for staffing and budgetary support of Executive Branch offices and departments.  It has failed to provide confirmation of major staff appointments leaving Executive agencies hampered by lack of leadership and plagued by lack of direction.  Career appointees as agency leaders have little incentive to carry out the best intentions of the current administration.  Finally, Congress has failed to give the President the authority to consolidate and re-order the departments and offices of the Executive Branch. 

At least a large part of the failure of certain agencies of the Executive Branch to do their jobs well can be traced to the intractability of the Congress on approving appointments and on providing monetary support for adequate staffing.  But the wicked obsession of too many members of both houses to see this President fail is a major problem.  So here, at long last, are some of what I consider to be the purposes behind all of these hearings:

1)    To delay action on, and consideration of, President Obama’s main policy agenda.  The Right Wing wishes to avoid any further dealings with real issues like gun violence, women’s issues, immigration, jobs, infrastructure, the climate, and dependency on fossil fuels because their rhetoric and lack of solutions has not played well on the national stage.

2)    This is a continuation of the right-wing strategy of  damaging the public’s view of national government.  They want the public to believe that government is out to get them, that government is intervening in their lives (ObamaCare their prime example), that government is responsible for all the ills of society, that government cannot be trusted, that government is their enemy and may have to be overthrown by armed insurrection. 

3)    This is a blatant attempt to discredit President Obama.  Not able to carry out Mitch McConnell’s all-consuming dictum to prevent this President from winning re-election, the Radical Right has turned to trying to destroy his legacy.  And that leads us to:

4)    The continuing attempt to “tar & feather” our first black President.  These so-called “scandals” are one more way to keep race covertly at the forefront and to attempt to convince as many as possible that you can’t trust this President or his administration (symbolized by the shameful attacks on his African-American Attorney General and UN Ambassador).  It is evident in the all-out attempts to connect everything negative to the White House, including the use of a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head, and more particularly, the charge that the President is not interested, is lazy, is incompetent or unable to manage the bureaucracy.

5)    The IRS scandal is ready-made for the Radical Right to use as another pretext for its on-going attempts to “flatten” tax rates, or to “simplify” the tax code.  Guess who the flat tax would most benefit?  The richest 1%, of course.

6)    And finally, it is the desperate attempt of the Right-wing to deflect the public’s distrust of their policies and philosophy illustrated in the Romney campaign, the Ryan Budget, the Sequester, the attack on women, and their campaign of obstruction against any legislation or program that would help the middle class and the working poor. 

The Republican Right-wing is once again the villain in it’s own production.  It is time to throw the bums out before they destroy both the Legislative and the Executive branches of our government.

Gun Violence Prevention Legislation Still Alive; LaPierre Wants to Kill It All

According to information obtained from www.senate.gov and the Library of Congress at www.thomas.loc.gov, we have certain gun violence prevention legislation currently pending in both the Senate and the House.  First, there is Senator Feinstein’s bill, originally introduced on 1/24/2013, known as S.150 and titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”  As of March 14th, that bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.  The Calendar is composed of several sections, which identify bills and resolutions awaiting Senate floor actions. Most measures are placed on the calendar under the heading "General Orders" in the sequence in which they were added to the calendar; in this case #27 on the Calendar, placed there on March 14, 2013 by the Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, Sen. Patrick Leahy.  (Related Bills: H.R.437, S.691 King-Thompson (HR-1565).

A related bill, S.691, entitled “High-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban of 2013,” was introduced in April by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and is also on the Calendar at #36.  This bill has no immediate summary attached. 

The Summary of Sen. Feinstein’s bill reads, in part, as follows:

Amends the federal criminal code to ban the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon, including:

• a semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine with certain characteristics;
• a semiautomatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds;
• a semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and has certain defined characteristics;
• a semiautomatic shotgun that has certain characteristics, such as a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; 
• a shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
• firearms that are specifically listed as prohibited by this Act and copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon;
• all belt-fed semiautomatic firearms;
• any combination of parts from which any such prohibited firearm can be assembled; and the frame or receiver of a prohibited rifle or shotgun.

However, it excludes from such ban any semiautomatic assault weapon that: (1) is lawfully possessed on the date of enactment; (2) is manually operated; (3) has been rendered permanently inoperable; (4) is an antique firearm; or (5) is used for law enforcement or security purposes or for testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.
Identifies, by make and model, firearms that are specifically exempted from the ban imposed by this Act.
 
Requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under federal or state law.

Makes it unlawful to: (1) import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device (can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition); or (2) store or keep any grandfathered semiautomatic weapon that may become accessible by an individual who is prohibited from receiving or possessing such a weapon. Requires identification markings (i.e., serial number and the date of manufacture) on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Provides for the seizure and forfeiture of prohibited large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

(Sec. 5) Makes it unlawful for an unlicensed individual to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic weapon to another unlicensed individual, unless a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer: (1) has first taken custody of the weapon for the purpose of complying with existing national instant criminal background check requirements; and (2) upon taking custody, complies with all firearms requirements as if the licensee were transferring the weapon from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee. Sets forth an exception for the temporary transfer of possession in a licensed target facility, but prohibits such regulations from imposing recordkeeping requirements on any unlicensed transferor or from requiring licensees to facilitate such transfers.

(Sec. 6) Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow the use of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funds to pay compensation to individuals who surrender semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices under a buy-back program.

(Sec. 7) Requires: (1) the Attorney General to instruct the Director of the National Institutes of Justice to conduct a peer-reviewed factual study of incidents of mass shootings in the United States, and (2) the Director to report the findings of such study to Congress within one year. Requires the Director to examine the impact upon perpetrators of specified factors, including childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to criminal acts or bullying, mental illness, school supportiveness, the availability of firearms and of weapons information, depictions of violence in video games and the media, and poverty or other socioeconomic factors.

In the House of Representatives, we find the following:

H.R.138
Latest Title: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (87)
Related Bills: S.33, S.691
Latest Major Action: 1/25/2013 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/3/2013--Introduced.
Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit: (1) the transfer or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for such a device lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of this Act's enactment; and (2) the importation or bringing into the United States of such a device.
Exempts: (1) the transfer or possession of such a device by a federal, state, or local agency or law enforcement officer; (2) certain transfers to licensees under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; (3) possession of such a device transferred to an individual upon retirement from a law enforcement agency if such individual is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition; and (4) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of such a device by a licensed manufacturer or importer for authorized testing or experimentation purposes.
Sets penalties for violations.
Requires a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after this Act's enactment to be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such enactment.

H.R.437
Latest Title: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/29/2013) Cosponsors (75)
Related Bills: S.150, S.691
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2013 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.  It has not yet been assigned to the House Legislative Calendar.

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/29/2013--Introduced.
Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 - Amends the federal criminal code to ban the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon, and is similar in content to Sen. Feinstein’s bill, S.150.

H.R.1565 - This bi-partisan bill seems to have the support of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and has already garnered 159 Co-sponsors including Democrat Rep. Thompson whose name appears as Co-sponsor.
Latest Title: Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013
Official Title as Introduced:  To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.
Sponsor: Rep King, Peter T. [NY-2] (introduced 4/15/2013) Cosponsors (159)
Latest Major Action: 4/30/2013 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

So there you have it on the legislative front where there is currently little activity of substance, but a promise of things to come.  Harry Reid is a sticking point.  He does not like dealing with this type of legislation, being from a state where the second amendment holds great sway.  On the other hand, he is the Majority Leader in the Senate and basically he calls the shots on legislation and the Calendar.  So, Harry -- how about we get Senator Feinstein’s legislation to the floor where an up-or-down vote can be taken? But don’t make any deals this time on special rules for 60-count majority votes on all amendments. 

What else is transpiring?  Well, Executive Vice-President of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, has no qualms about his stance (and that of the NRA) on this legislation.  During a speech to that group’s annual convention, he made his loyalties crystal-clear, declaring that "we will never surrender our guns" and further declaring that the ill-fated background check proposal in Senate was ineffective.

Here are some excerpts from CNN and NBC News, plus the Washington Post:

He implored members to step up their outreach to members of Congress as part of a fight against "elites" and others who "use tragedy to try to blame us, to shame us" into compromise and who "want to change America, our culture and our values."
LaPierre said NRA membership has spiked, reaching a record 5 million, and he implored members to counter efforts by leading gun-control advocates, like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Obama, and Democrats in Congress.

"We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation fight for everything we care about. We have a chance to secure our freedom for a generation, or to lose it forever," LaPierre said.
"We must remain vigilant, ever resolute, and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us," he said.

LaPierre disparaged what he called Obama's "all-out siege against our rights" and efforts in Congress to enact new gun control measures, calling it "political posturing."
"Mr. President, you can give all the speeches you want. You can conjure up all the polls and you can call NRA members all the nasty names you can think of, but your gun control legislation won't stop one criminal, wouldn't make anyone safer anywhere," LaPierre said.

LaPierre and the NRA propose, instead, that current laws be enforced, that schools include armed guards, that the government rebuild a "broken mental health system," and "for God's sake, leave the rest of us alone!"

LaPierre said the failed compromise background check proposal by Senators Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, were ineffective.
"The Manchin-Toomey bill you later backed wouldn't have prevented Newtown, wouldn't have prevented Tucson or Aurora," he said of other deadly mass shootings in Arizona in 2011 and Colorado last July, "and won't prevent the next tragedy,"
"None of it, any of it have anything to do with keeping our children safe at school anywhere," he said.

LaPierre also referenced the Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent manhunt as an argument for putting guns in the hands of more Americans.  He was, of course referring to the way Bostonians were, as he put it, "frightened citizens... sheltered in place with no means to defend themselves."

“How many Bostonians wished they had a gun two weeks ago?” LaPierre said. “Boston proves it. When brave law enforcement officers did their jobs in that city so courageously, good guys with guns stopped terrorists with guns.”

Thus, we stand where we stood before: within a House divided.  On the one hand are the protector’s of a right granted by the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to individual gun owners.  On the other hand, are those who say that every Constitutional right is subject to certain restrictions on abuses of those rights that could abrogate the right or the Constitution itself.  The essence of the argument boils down to what one believes about protection, freedom, and responsibility.

Self-defense and self-protection are certainly important to our well-being, but when they crossover into the anarchy of shooting other people without cause other than a perceived threat, then we have a problem of enormous proportions because we have moved from rule of law to rule of guns.

Freedom is tricky, and it trips us up every so often.  Freedom is not libertinism where one can do as one pleases, and everyone else be damned.  Freedom is not simply an individual right; it is an individual potential within the complicated context of community life.  That is, my freedom is related to your freedom and to everyone else’s freedom.  Society cannot sustain itself with a bunch of individualists going their own way.  Society - the commonweal, the public domain -  is a group of individuals brought together within a framework of laws that allow basic freedoms to all individuals but within the context of the well-being of the society and the restraints that communal living place upon us all.  Therefore, my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are all wide open to me, but they are at the same time restrained by my obligation to others and my responsibility to live as a good neighbor with my fellow citizens. 

The problem with freedom of gun ownership advocated by the NRA is precisely the fact that the NRA has convinced many gun owners that they have an unbridled right to those guns, to use them as they see fit.  Aside from a few educational programs about gun safety and responsible use of said weapons, they do not see any possibility or reason why society should put any restrictions on gun usage whatsoever.  That is the epitome of social irresponsibility.  It bespeaks a hostility to the society that is unthinkable in this contractual government.  It says that my individual right to gun ownership and use is above your right to a potential for a life free from the threat of being killed by an irresponsible, crazed or criminal gun wielder.

In fact, the mantra that having more and more gun owners and users would prevent abhorrent behavior by killing or disabling gun wielders before they can do the same to me is again the vision of an old wild west where the gun was the law and whoever shot first was the victor or the star or the top gun, and the survivor. 

Gun ownership is not just a right or a freedom, it is a responsibility, and carries with it an obligation to defend all of our liberties and freedoms, including the rights, freedoms and well-being of all citizens and of our government.

The right-wing nuts who currently hold sway in the NRA (and the Congress) are not defenders of liberty; they are the destroyers of liberty because they cannot, and will not, attune their will to the will of the people.  The lesson of the rejection of the Manchin-Toomey amendment on background checks is not that people don’t want them, but that a small crowd of NRA lobbyists and officers cowed the people’s representatives into voting against the rights and freedoms of this society to defend and enhance its own communal life and liberty.  They did not attack just gun restrictions; they attacked the citizenry as a whole; they attacked the nature of our Commonweal and came away with a loss that they call a victory.  We as a representative democracy are the worse for their success.  We have lost the ability to restrict an individual right even when that right results in behaviors clearly shown to have harmed society and the citizenry as a whole. 

The argument that such restrictions as limited ammunition clips, background checks and a ban on military-style assault weapons would not have stopped the perpetrators of  Columbine or Tucson or Aurora or Newtown or other such massacres, is not the point.  What we need to do is change the mind-set, the viewpoint, the norms that people now accept so readily: that gun violence is the price we must pay for the right to gun ownership; that gun violence cannot at least be diminished by wise and prudent and sensible laws, without diminishing the right of  responsible citizens to bear arms.  We are being told by the NRA and their co-conspirators that responsible gun violence prevention legislation and laws are not the prerogative of the people or in their interest.  Such bamboozling talk is anti-community and anti-democracy, for we are being sold the false rule of guns and their owners, rather than the sovereign rule of law. 

The NRA has too much profit motive for us to ever believe their rhetoric.  They are now speaking, not for their members, but for the gun manufacturers who want to sell as many guns as they can to as many people as possible, so they can increase their profit margin.  Every time Wayne LaPierre opens his mouth to speak, we should hear his words of gun industry CEOs and Board Presidents flowing forth to produce greater sales.  The protective barrier constructed by the NRA to keep the second amendment sacrosanct is nothing more than the protective cover of a lobbying group seeking corporate payments and acquired clout.  Don’t be bamboozled by Wayne LaPierre, or any of his ilk.

NRA’s Answer for Our Times: ARMED INSURRECTION

We begin this week’s Blog with some words from hitnewsnow.blogspot.com:

“The NRA's leadership embraces an insurrectionist ideology that asserts that the intent of the second amendment is to permit American citizens to shoot and kill federal agents and law enforcement officers in the event that they believe those agents are attempting to facilitate or impose some form of government tyranny.  This dangerous doctrine, that flirts with committing treason, is the cornerstone of the gun lobby's opposition to any and all forms of gun control, and is explicitly expressed by many of the NRA's congressional supporters."

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre argued that, "without any doubt" Americans need the firepower to fight back against the government if government agents come knocking at the door. LaPierre (has also) stated bluntly that “Our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

The most frightening part about this insurrectionist ideology is that the people who adhere to it, already believe we are living under tyranny or headed rapidly in that direction.  With this in mind, many of them already contend that the time for armed insurrection is now or at least it is coming very soon.  In March of 2012, a Republican Committee county chair in Virginia published a newsletter that… argued that America under Obama was so tyrannical that if he could not be voted out in November, armed insurrection would become necessary.”

I find this loose talk of revolutionary action to overthrow the government ludicrous in the extreme.  First, this is a small minority of the population.  Second, they are talking about a government that has already been taken over by the rich and powerful who will not hesitate to crush them in a moment’s time.  Third, they need the support of the population for a revolution to be successful.  Where do they expect that vast support to come from?  They have forgotten that there are millions who will rebel against any such armed insurrection led by wrong-headed individuals who see conspiracy, socialism, and privacy invasion wherever they look, and who will lead us to worse government, not better government.

They are a small minority:  The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 1,007 active hate groups in the United States in 2012. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2012 were included.  And that only counts hate groups.  How many of those hate enough to attempt an overthrow of the government?
Surprisingly enough, a new poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University indicates that 44% of Republicans and 29% of Americans believe that an armed rebellion might soon be necessary to protect our freedom and rights.  The percent of Democratic Party members who agree drops to 18% but the percent of Independents who agree is up at 27% (this was a poll of 863 registered voters conducted nationally by telephone with both landline and cell phones from April 22 through April 28, 2013, and has a margin of error of +/-3.4 percentage points.)

One commentator, a Justin Acuff of addicting info.org, writes:
“Unsurprisingly, those numbers are much higher among conservatives and those without much education.  This goes to show that the sensationalistic endorsement of fringe conspiracy theories that are driven forward in the name of freedom and small government by the conservative right are starting to take hold… and the Republican side of things has proven itself to be quite effective of making use of fear as a motivator, especially through their propaganda wing, Fox News.”

But before we get too upset about the fact that almost a third of our people think armed rebellion may be necessary, we have to ask how many of these are left of center revolutionaries who will be glad to overthrow the revolutionaries from the right?  Hard to say.  The point is, no one can be sure what this poll signifies except what Acuff suggests: that Fox News is having an effect on the thinking of certain people. 
What one must always keep in mind if contemplating an armed rebellion against government is what Justin also points out: it’s best to have the support of a near-unanimous  percentage of the people or the chances of succeeding are not great.

Another commentator on armed rebellion has this to say about such support:
“I think the Government Stinks too...but most people are too self -involved to even care about what is going on in the country they live in.......I mean most people were more concerned with the Death of Heath Ledger than the fact that almost 4000 soldiers have died in a useless war (on CNN.com ).....It truly is sad....I mean more people vote for American Idol in a state on Wednesday night then in a primary or caucus .....people have better things to do I guess ......no time for a revolt”

In that same vein, I find the utterances about armed rebellion from right-wing revolutionaries to be, in the main, comical and tragic; the opposite sides of the same coin.  They just don’t get it: the people are not on their side.  Even 44% of Republicans is misleading  when you consider that a heavy percentage of those are probably senior citizens, some of whom have never owned guns, may not understand what an “armed rebellion” entails, and have little capacity to support or join such an actual attack upon their sitting government.  Their main concern may become:  Who will send out the social security checks while we‘re shutting down the government?  Armed rebellion rhetoric is just another ploy by dissatisfied conservatives to frighten a larger percentage of Americans into believing the unbelievable.

A government that has already been taken over:  Our present government is under the control of the richest 1-2% of this country.  More than 40% of our current Congress are themselves millionaires and are representing constituencies other than their own back home because they are financially supported by fellow-millionaires and billionaires who donate to their campaigns.  They are also supported by special interests to whom they cow-tow when it comes to their votes.
Take the recent example of 45 senators who voted against expanded background checks on those purchasing guns.  Although a huge percentage of people in this country, in poll after poll, favored such legislation, this bi-partisan amendment was defeated because a certain group led by the NRA threatened to withdraw their support in the next primary election for anyone who voted in favor.  Enough caved in so that a 60-vote result was not attained, although a simple majority was actually acquired.  So this is the government against which you want to rebel.  First of all, they just voted with you and against their own constituents and second, if they don’t want to be overthrown by you they will stop you with their power and their money if you ever try an armed rebellion against them.
More broadly:  what “government” are you talking about?  Your answer to this question is not well-defined; agents do not a government make.  After all, blaming troubles on government is not new.  We all need a scapegoat at times, and this is a perennial one.  What is this amorphous something called “government” that is completely interfering with our everyday existence and messing with our lives? Just what are we talking about?
Is this “government” the Congress that makes all of our federal laws and appropriates all federal monies?  Is this “government” the one administered by an Executive branch of offices and departments that carries out those laws and those appropriations?  Or, is it the “government” of a Judicial system that judges the constitutionality of the laws, decides on guilt or innocence of alleged individual and corporate law-breakers, and metes out punishments according to its verdicts?

Actual armed rebellion against the federal government is another thing entirely  when one looks at reality!
“Government” is legislators, teachers, first responders (police, fire, emergency personnel), clerks and secretaries, administrators and supervisors, scientists and border guards, and of course it‘s agents who carry out the laws in person; it’s judges and attorneys and some doctors, and millions in the military forces.  Government, above all, is people.  It is not amorphous.  It is people doing jobs that make government work, every day.  There is not some inner circle planning to takeover anything.  They don’t have time for such nonsense. 
Oh sure, people in government get carried away sometimes.  They propose things that are unconstitutional, they do things without careful consideration, they mess-up badly when they propose something that has exceptional but unintended outcomes, they do sometimes use power, and taxpayer money, poorly.  Government is people -- they make mistakes. 
But, there are many more people who are also part of our particular form of “government“; they are called citizens or “we, the people”.  They are the ones who have the responsibility of being one of those checks on what other members of government sometimes do poorly.  They must organize, they must speak out, they must vote, they must work for change when it is needed, and yes, they must take action by non-violent protest and citizen action in an attempt to reverse mistakes made by the governing bodies.  This branch of “government” -- the people -- is not to be ignored.  It can itself rise up and rebel against any right-wing armed rebellion; and probably would.
Destroying our “government” by armed rebellion is not acceptable.  It is in itself, the destroyer of democracy because no vote to foment rebellion will ever be taken, and therefore cannot become a law of the land.  In other words, armed rebellion is an illegitimate action that does not preserve our representative democracy; it is, in and of itself, the end of democracy because it is rule by a few; it is dictatorship.  No armed rebellion (except ironically, the American revolution), can claim to promote democracy, for the armed group that carries out rebellion is rarely, if ever, intent upon returning power to the people. 
The American Revolution is somewhat different in that it was established upon the core principal of representative democracy (“no taxation without representation” was one slogan).  It intended, and expressed in document(s), including numerous petitions to the Crown, that it wished to establish a representative and open government instead of the closed monarchial system.  And amazingly, the armed rebellion carried out that intention.
But armed rebellion against our current democracy has little chance of producing more democracy, especially if the rebels are themselves seeking power to carry out their own agenda and not that of the vast majority of the citizens.  One armed rebellion, called the Civil War, failed in its goal of destroying the federal government because it neglected the will of the people.  The Confederacy did not prevail partly because, in contrast to the Revolution, their underlying motive was to maintain slavery and thus to diminish the people, not to enhance their suffrage or their democratic ideals and liberties.  It failed because it intended to weaken democracy not strengthen it.

Where do you expect your support to come from?  Gun owners?  People who hate other than white folks?  Urban gangs?  The Tea Party?  Can you actually muster the armed help of more than 1-5% of the population?  It is very hard to say.  But let us be clear about one thing:  you do not have broad-based support.  You never will. 
In truth, there are, in this country, those who are vehemently opposed to your talk of armed rebellion against the government.  If our national government, as a result of your rebellion, was to become a radical right-wing, national socialist, hatred-filled cabal that destroys freedom and takes away the civil rights so long fought for and won, YOU would be surprised and overwhelmed by the reaction waiting for you from people not known to favor unbridled ownership of guns.  Although it will make for some strange bedfellows, they will join the 1% plutocrats now in charge to oppose your rebellion and to annihilate your movement.  Your mantra that everyone should own a gun in order to protect themselves shall surely come back to haunt you.  Beware your own rhetoric for you shall surely reap what you have sown!
Although our colonial government was built on the foundation of armed rebellion against a government, we are wedded to representative democracy as the best form of government ever constructed.  To date, we have not heard from your side as how you would improve upon that model.
Maybe that is your greatest failure.  You have not said how you will govern.  In fact, that is the major difficulty with most rebellions, revolutions and civil wars.  The opposition rarely thinks ahead and plans for the transition from status quo to a new form of governance.  And so, chaos and anarchy are most likely to reign until, inevitably, a form of dictatorship emerges, which is much easier to manage than a messy democracy.  And there lies the rub.

For all your talk about government interference, government injustices, government bureaucracy, government over-spending, government destruction of freedoms, we can’t tell for sure if your form of government, yet to be announced, would correct any of the problems that have arisen in our form of government.  So, unless you are anarchists, whatever you propose to substitute for the brand of government we have now, will probably increase all of our current problems and spawn many more, instead of reducing them and producing a more democratic, free, people-centered structure.

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again:  government is not the enemy.  It is sometimes the target of our frustration and even our anger, but it is not the enemy.  Government is much broader than we generally proclaim for it, because it includes the citizenry as one very important branch or component.  We are endowed with unalienable rights, we are also the source of voter power; we are mentioned in the Constitution as possessing unspecified powers not reserved to the federal government or to the states.  We are part of the government and it is our responsibility to see that it operates as it should.  We are protected in our speech and our religious practices,  we have the right to a redress of grievances, search and seizure is not permitted on an arbitrary basis and privacy and property are even protected. 

The real enemy consists of those forces that want to diminish the power of the people, and the rights and privileges that we enjoy.  The enemy are those who want to capture the levers of government through under-handed, illegal, and even legal means (through donating obscene amounts of cash to campaigns).  The enemy are those who seek power over others; who want others to conform to their ideologies, their religion, their way of life; their values.  The enemy are those who want to restrict voting rights and the social contract that we have for the well-being of all our citizens, particularly of our most vulnerable. 

The enemy is not the government.  It may need reforming; it may need non-violent and organized opposition; it may need reproving; it may need picketing; it may need lots of forms of redress of grievances, but it is not the enemy.  It does too much that is right to replace it with what is wrong.  It performs too many services that protect and enhance people‘s lives, to be replaced by entities that cannot adequately address the peoples’  needs. We cannot simply overthrow that which exists and expect that flaws and inadequacies will be addressed.  Our form of governance demands that we be ever vigilant and ever-active in seeing that our government functions as it was designed to function, but to change it peacefully when we are aggrieved by its performance.  Insurrectionist talk, philosophy and ideology will not enhance our system for it is intrinsically contrary to a democratic system of government.  It’s past time to tell the NRA leadership to change their ridiculous tune.