• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: April 2013

It is time to return the award Rep. Hartzler

20 Saturday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, award, Family Research Council, missouri, Vicky Hartzler

In February, Vicky Hartzler received the True Blue Award from Family Research Council Action and Focus on the Family Action. In her press release, Hartzler said:

I am honored to receive this award. As someone who has stood for pro-family issues and for the defense of life, I am humbled to be recognized for efforts to strengthen the American family.

Today we have one more example about the pro-family values of the Family Research Council.

Here is what was on FMR website Thursday.

In the aftermath of horrible tragedies like Newtown, the government desperately wants to do something–even if that something is the wrong thing. There seems to be this notion, at least among liberals, that more laws will protect us–but as we all witnessed in Boston, that isn’t necessarily the case. The government can’t make us safer until it recognizes that the problem isn’t the instruments of violence–but the environment of it. Stronger background checks wouldn’t have prevented the deaths of three people at the finish line on Monday, any more than it would have stopped Floyd Corkins from walking into our lobby and shooting Leo Johnson.

If Congress wants to stop these tragedies, then it has to address the government’s own hostility to the institution of the family and organizations that can address the real problem: the human heart. As I’ve said before, America doesn’t need gun control, it needs self-control. And a Congress that actively discourages it–through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility–is only compounding the problem.

So, Boston and Newtown is the result of abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism and religious hostility.

Any self-respecting person would be embarrassed to receive a reward from such a group.

Representative Hartzler should return that award.

Claire McCaskill gets it: labels are important

20 Saturday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Boston Marathon Bombing, Claire McCaskill, missouri, Sandy Hook, Terrorism

There’s been some noise generated by the usual suspects about whether or not President Obama was too late to dub the Boston Marathon bombing an act of terror. Generally, a political or social motive is considered essential for such an act to be considered terrorism, and even though the suspects have been identified, we have no clue as to their motive, so others, including a few sane conservatives, have responded that assigning a label is actually premature.

However, given the general furor raised by what conservatives want to view as the the president’s failure in regard to semantics, Senator Claire McCaskill has taken the issue a step further and asked some pertinent questions about how we label acts of mass violence:  

Based on the evidence at this point, is there any difference between Sandy Hook and Boston other than the choice of weapon? … We are so quick to call Boston terror,” McCaskill said. “Why aren’t we calling the man with the high-capacity assault weapon and the high-capacity magazine, why aren’t we calling him a terrorist?

I would probably have been inclined at one time to say that I’m not interested in the words that we use to describe these actions. However, it occurs to me that McCaskill’s concern underlines the fact that how we label vicious events is indicative of how seriously we take them. If we are going to deal with the epidemic of gun violence – in the face of NRA intransigence, their paid-for gun whores, and other assorted 2nd amendment nutjobs – we need to conceptually separate it from everyday crime and elevate its importance, something that the label “terrorism” might do. Another example of using labels as a tool to fight especially vicious crime is provided by the designation of “hate crimes.”

The importance as well as the fungibility of such labeling was really brought home to me by a Daily Kos posting about a Fox news contributor who tweeted:

Just b/c the bombing suspects were Muslim, that doesn’t make it ‘terrorism’ any more than a crazy abortion clinic bomber is a terrorist.

Poor baby probably thought she was counseling forbearance in the absence of real information. Instead she reveals an unfortunate mindset when it comes to terrorism – that’s right, terrorism – against abortion clinics. As the DailyKos poster notes, the range of violence that has been carried out against abortion doctors and clinics meets the FBI’s definition of terror* – which, as far as I am concerned, is as good as any. It’s important to make this point because only when we realize that we are talking about people who resort to the same solutions as Al Queda, do we finally understand the full, evil implications of their actions. I’m not sure that “terrorism” is the word we want to use to describe Sandy Hook, but perhaps we do need some special label to designate such events as distinct phenomena that we need to combat with the same energy we have shown when we approach the issue of terror – preferably a label with the same emotional impact as “terrorism.”

*There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Will Roy Blunt prove inconsistent on gun-owner privacy vs. Internet privacy?

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

AT&T, CISPA, gun registries, missouri, privacyrights, Roy Blunt, Telecoms, Toomey-Manchin Amendment

On the topic of the entirely predictable defeat of the Senate’s Manchin-Toomey gun amendment, The Erstwhile Conservative says just what needs to be said beautifully in a post laying into the nation’s “gun whores,” including one of the foremost among them, Missouri’s Roy Blunt. Go read it all. The poster, Duane Graham, lays it all out: Blunt the cash-gruber who is willing to lie to satisfy the NRA folks who pull his strings on this particular issue. In this case, the lie he is talking about has to do with Blunt’s affirmation of dishonest NRA panders to the effect that the Toomey-Manchin amendment would have established a gun registry.

In a particularly telling quote in the post, Blunt, confronted by a Fox newscaster with the fact that his fellow Republican, Senator Toomey, was emphatic that the amendment would not lead to a gun registry, responded that:

And that’s his point of view, and it’s one that may have validity. Just last week, it was determined that the state of Missouri – my state – had given 167,000 concealed carry permit information on 160,000 people to, of all federal agencies, the Social Security Administration. Once you get these lists out there – once you have a gun dealer keeping lists for lots of other people – the only way that works, frankly, is if you keep the paper. And if you keep the paper, eventually somebody’s going to ask for it.

Graham can’t resist poking a little fun at Blunt’s ridiculous comment:

Notice how quickly Blunt acknowledged that the other side might be right. But also notice that even if what Blunt said was true-and obviously it is not-even if someone asked for “the paper,” so what? What is it that Blunt fears? Does he fear that law-abiding gun owners will soon be the subject of an impossible-to-conceive gun grab by the feds?

Does he fear that Barack Obama  will find out where all the white folks who own guns live and then tell a barely-breathing New Black Panther Party where they are so we can have a race war?

Or perhaps Blunt fears that Barack Obama will not step down after his second term and instead use the military to go after every single gun owner in the country and rip the weapons from millions of cold, dead hands.

Some might be tempted to note that Graham’s ridicule falls just a little flat because the folks Blunt is pandering to, on behalf of the NRA, are often insane and ignorant enough to be quite capable of entertaining just such beliefs. Which leads me to the obvious question. Hasn’t it ever occurred to anyone that individuals who entertain such paranoid fantasies are not necessarily the folks we want armed to the teeth? Same goes for those folks who think that they have a right to “nullify” democratically enacted laws they don’t like (like Obamacare, maybe?), and resort to guns if their absurd nullification charades are ignored.

The Republican frenzy over sharing information about gun-owners with the federal government, via gun safety laws or, here in Missouri, by cooperating with Social Security Administration fraud investigations, is somewhat paradoxical given that the GOP-dominated House of Representatives just enabled a massive invasion of citizen privacy. I’m speaking of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which was passed out of committee yesterday and which will be voted on by the entire House. What does it do? In the words of novelist and tech writer Cory Doctorow:

CISPA is the latest Congressional proposal to do something unbelievably horrible with the Internet — this time, it’s letting US law enforcement and intelligence service raid all of your data, all the time, without letting you know, regardless of your service provider’s privacy policy, in the name of preventing “cyberattacks,” whatever they are.

And does this bother the sensitive Republican souls who run the House of Representatives? The folks who are working so hard in the name of privacy rights to protect the ability of citizens to secretly squirrel away any kind of weapons cache they might desire? Not at all – as Doctorow notes:

It’s about as horrible as it can be: the House Rules Committee won’t even allow privacy-protecting amendments on the agenda; the bill’s sponsor Rep. Mike Rogers dismisses people who oppose CISPA as 14-year-olds in their parents’ basements; and a bunch of tech companies are lobbying in favor of CISPA because the bill cannily immunizes them from liability for firehosing your personal, sensitive information all over the place.

CISPA hasn’t made it to the Senate yet, so it’s hard to say what Blunt, specifically, will do. He co-sponsored an earlier iteration of this bill until the outcry became so strong that he withdrew his support. However, among those opposed to the earlier CISPA-type bills were the big telecoms such as AT&T, a big-time Blunt contributor that retains Blunt’s son’s lobbying firm. This time around, the legislation contains a sop to the telecoms since they will be able to hand over our information with no fears of repercussions and they’ve mostly lined up behind it.

In the light of the newly secured telecom support, it will be interesting to see how Blunt swings if CISPA makes it out of the full house. I hope that if he comes out in support of the bill, plenty of folks remember to ask him why his concerns about privacy are limited to the fantasies of paranoid gun-owners.

NOTE: To be fair, many Democrats were among the worst offenders supporting earlier CISPA legislation. President Obama, though, has promised to veto the current legislation if it comes to him for his signature in its present form which lacks adequate provisions to protect Internet privacy.

Will Roy Blunt prove inconsistent on gun-owner privacy vs. Internet privacy?

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

On the topic of the entirely predictable defeat of the Senate’s Manchin-Toomey gun amendment, The Erstwhile Conservative says just what needs to be said beautifully in a post laying into the nation’s “gun whores,” including one of the foremost among them, Missouri’s Roy Blunt. Go read it all. The poster, Duane Graham, lays it all out: Blunt the cash-gruber who is willing to lie to satisfy the NRA folks who pull his strings on this particular issue. In this case, the lie he is talking about has to do with Blunt’s affirmation of dishonest NRA panders to the effect that the Toomey-Manchin amendment would have established a gun registry.

In a particularly telling quote in the post, Blunt, confronted by a Fox newscaster with the fact that his fellow Republican, Senator Toomey, was emphatic that the amendment would not lead to a gun registry, responded that:

And that’s his point of view, and it’s one that may have validity. Just last week, it was determined that the state of Missouri – my state – had given 167,000 concealed carry permit information on 160,000 people to, of all federal agencies, the Social Security Administration. Once you get these lists out there – once you have a gun dealer keeping lists for lots of other people – the only way that works, frankly, is if you keep the paper. And if you keep the paper, eventually somebody’s going to ask for it.

Graham can’t resist poking a little fun at Blunt’s ridiculous comment:

Notice how quickly Blunt acknowledged that the other side might be right. But also notice that even if what Blunt said was true-and obviously it is not-even if someone asked for “the paper,” so what? What is it that Blunt fears? Does he fear that law-abiding gun owners will soon be the subject of an impossible-to-conceive gun grab by the feds?

Does he fear that Barack Obama  will find out where all the white folks who own guns live and then tell a barely-breathing New Black Panther Party where they are so we can have a race war?

Or perhaps Blunt fears that Barack Obama will not step down after his second term and instead use the military to go after every single gun owner in the country and rip the weapons from millions of cold, dead hands.

Some might be tempted to note that Graham’s ridicule falls just a little flat because the folks Blunt, on behalf of the NRA, is pandering too are often insane and ignorant enough to be quite capable of entertaining just such beliefs. Which leads me to the obvious question. Hasn’t it ever occurred to anyone that individuals who entertain such paranoid fantasies are not necessarily the folks we want armed to the teeth? Same goes for those folks who think that they have a right to “nullify” democratically enacted laws they don’t like (like Obamacare, maybe?), and resort to guns if their absurd nullification charades are ignored.

The Republican frenzy over sharing information about gun-owners with the federal government, via gun safety laws or, here in Missouri, by cooperating with Social Security Administration fraud investigations, is somewhat paradoxical given that the GOP-dominated House of Representatives just enabled a massive invasion of citizen privacy. I’m speaking of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which was passed out of committee yesterday and which will be voted on by the entire House. What does it do? In the words of novelist and tech writer Cory Doctorow:

CISPA is the latest Congressional proposal to do something unbelievably horrible with the Internet — this time, it’s letting US law enforcement and intelligence service raid all of your data, all the time, without letting you know, regardless of your service provider’s privacy policy, in the name of preventing “cyberattacks,” whatever they are.

And does this bother the sensitive Republican souls who run the House of Representatives? The folks who are working so hard in the name of privacy rights to protect the ability of citizens to secretly squirrel away any kind of weapons cache they might desire? Not at all – as Doctorow notes:

It’s about as horrible as it can be: the House Rules Committee won’t even allow privacy-protecting amendments on the agenda; the bill’s sponsor Rep. Mike Rogers dismisses people who oppose CISPA as 14-year-olds in their parents’ basements; and a bunch of tech companies are lobbying in favor of CISPA because the bill cannily immunizes them from liability for firehosing your personal, sensitive information all over the place.

CISPA hasn’t made it to the Senate yet, so it’s hard to say what Blunt, specifically, will do. He co-sponsored an earlier iteration of this bill until the outcry became so strong that he withdrew his support. However, among those opposed to the earlier CISPA-type bills were the big telecoms such as AT&T, a big-time Blunt contributor that retains Blunt’s son’s lobbying firm. This time around, the legislation contains a sop to the telecoms since they will be able to hand over our information with no fears of repercussions and they’ve mostly lined up behind it.

In the light of the newly secured telecom support, it will be interesting to see how Blunt swings if CISPA makes it out of the full house. I hope that if he comes out in support of the bill, plenty of folks remember to ask him why his concerns about privacy are limited to the fantasies of paranoid gun-owners.

NOTE: To be fair, many Democrats were among the worst offenders supporting earlier CISPA legislation. President Obama, though, has promised to veto the current legislation if it comes to him for his signature in its present form which lacks adequate provisions to protect Internet privacy.

The United States Senate isn’t the only dysfunctional anachronism in America

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

guns, NRA, States United to Prevent Guns Violence

Previously:

We know who owns America (April 17, 2013)

An effective ad from States United to Prevent Gun Violence:

Guns have changed.

Shouldn’t our gun laws?

We know who owns America

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

guns, missouri, NRA

“…I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced.  ‘A prop,’ somebody called them.  ‘Emotional blackmail,’ some outlet said.  Are they serious?  Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue?  Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?…”

The U.S. Senate vote today on universal background checks:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 1st Session

[….]

Question: On the Amendment (Manchin Amdt. No. 715 )

Vote Number: 97 Vote Date: April 17, 2013, 04:04 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 715 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)

Statement of Purpose: 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.

Vote Counts: YEAs 54

NAYs 46

[….]

Blunt (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Profiles in courage. Nay.

President Obama (D):

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_______________________________

For Immediate Release                                                                April 17, 2013

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Rose Garden

5:35 P.M. EDT

    MR. BARDEN:  Hello.  My name is Mark Barden.  Just four months ago, my wife Jackie and I lost our son, and our children, James and Natalie, they lost their little brother Daniel.  Daniel was a first-grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Our sweet, 7-year-old Daniel was one of 20 children, six adults lost on December 14th.  I have to say it feels like it was just yesterday.

    In our deepest grief, we were supported by the love of our families and comforted by the love and prayers we received from millions of America, from every corner of the country.

    What happened in Newtown can happen anywhere.  In any instant, any dad in America could be in my shoes.  No one should feel the pain.  No one should feel our pain or the pain felt by the tens of thousands of people who’ve lost loved ones to senseless gun violence.

    And that’s why we’re here.  Two weeks ago, 12 of us from Newtown came to meet with U.S. senators and have a conversation about how to bring common-sense solutions to the issues of gun violence.  We came with a sense of hope, optimistic that real conversation could begin that would ultimately save the lives of so many Americans.  We met with dozens of Democrats and Republicans and shared with them pictures of our children, our spouses, our parents who lost their lives on December 14th.

    Expanded background checks wouldn’t have saved our loved ones, but still we came to support the bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with “A” ratings from the NRA — a common-sense proposal supported by 90 percent of Americans.  It’s a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

    We’ll return home now, disappointed but not defeated.  We return home with the determination that change will happen — maybe not today, but it will happen.  It will happen soon.  We’ve always known this would be a long road, and we don’t have the luxury of turning back.  We will keep moving forward and build public support for common-sense solutions in the areas of mental health, school safety, and gun safety.

    We take strength from the children and loved ones that we lost, and we carry a great faith in the American people.

    On behalf of the Sandy Hook Promise, I would like to thank President Obama, Vice President Biden for their leadership and for standing strong and continuing to fight for a safer America. I would like to thank Senators Toomey, Manchin, Schumer and Kirk on coming together to seek common ground on legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and save lives.

    And I would like to thank Connecticut’s Senators Blumenthal and Murphy.  They’ve been right with us.  They stood by us right from the very beginning.  From the first few hours after this tragedy they were with us.

    We will not be defeated.  We are not defeated, and we will not be defeated.  We are here now; we will always be here because we have no other choice.  We are not going away.  And every day, as more people are killed in this country because of gun violence, our determination grows stronger.

    We leave Washington hoping that others, both here and across the country, will join us in making the Sandy Hook Promise, a pledge that we’d had great hope that more U.S. senators would take literally.  I’d like to end by repeating the words with which the Sandy Hook Promise begins:  Our hearts are broken.  Our spirit is not.

    Thank you.  It is now my great pleasure to introduce the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.  

    THE PRESIDENT:  A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies — including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers — this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.

Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders — not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children.  And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it.  They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.

By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun.  We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness.  Ninety percent of Americans support that idea.  Most Americans think that’s already the law.

And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea.  But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.

A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks.  But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.

I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican — both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks.  And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that.  That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights.  All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet.  So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.

Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence.  And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence.  She is a Westerner and a moderate.  And she supports these background checks.

In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks.  The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks.  So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress.  It represented moderation and common sense.  That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill.  They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite.  This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry.  Plain and simple, right there in the text.  But that didn’t matter.

And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators.  And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people.  I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown.  And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.  

But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun.  There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this.  It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections.  They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.

And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too.  And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote “no.”

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres.  And that’s true.  As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil.  We learned that tragically just two days ago.  But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.

And this legislation met that test.  And too many senators failed theirs.

I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory.  And my question is, a victory for who?  A victory for what?  All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check.  That didn’t make our kids safer.  Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done?  It begs the question, who are we here to represent?

I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced.  “A prop,” somebody called them.  “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said.  Are they serious?  Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue?  Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

But this effort is not over.  I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it.  Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities.  We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system.  We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job.  We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.

But we can do more if Congress gets its act together.  And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.

To all the people who supported this legislation — law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are — you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.

To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one.

The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe.  Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way.  But they’re better organized.  They’re better financed.  They’ve been at it longer.  And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that’s the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can’t get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.

So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this.  And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington.  And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.

And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us.  I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.

And I see this as just round one.  When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now.  We’re going to have to change.  That’s what the whole country said.  Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora.  Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.

And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m assuming that’s not a temporary thing.  I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.

I believe we’re going to be able to get this done.  Sooner or later, we are going to get this right.  The memories of these children demand it.  And so do the American people.

Thank you very much, everybody.

                       END                5:55 P.M. EDT

Salus populi suprema lex esto, not really…

17 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, Medicaid, missouri, rally

There was a rally in support of Medicaid expansion at the capitol in Jefferson City today. The republican House majority decided to meet elsewhere.

Via Twitter:

Rep. Stacey Newman ‏@staceynewman

Proud to be with Rep. Genise Montecillo at Medicaid Capitol Rally…GOP escaped to avoid facing Missourians. pic.twitter.com/toxzyDg7kg 5:21 PM – 16 Apr 13

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

Your Coward Caucus, the GOP reps who escaped to @MO_Farm_Bureau during #MOMedcaid lobby day and rally. #moleg pic.twitter.com/WEYwCnaRXQ 3:49 PM – 16 Apr 13

If a constituent visits the state capitol and you’re not there to hear what they have to say, did they make a sound?

Offered with comment

16 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2003, Boston, Fanueil Hall, John Ashcroft, John Hancock, missouri, Twitter

Previously:

Offered without comment (April 16, 2013)

Yesterday, via Twitter:

John Hancock @johnrhancock

Anybody else out there wishing John Ashcroft was still the USAG? #boston. 7:35 PM – 15 Apr 13

Boston? John Ashcroft? Yes, we do remember, almost ten years ago:

Crowd of 1,200 boos Ashcroft

By Allison Brown

The Daily Free Press (Boston U.)

09/10/2003

(U-WIRE) BOSTON — With fists and middle fingers upraised, a booing, hissing and chanting crowd of about 1,200 people awaited United States Attorney General John Ashcroft when he arrived at Faneuil Hall Tuesday morning, decrying his support of what some protesters called government policies undermining civil rights.

Ashcroft was bombarded by cries of “Shame!” and the sound of the “Imperial Death March” from the movie “Star Wars” as he entered a meeting with law enforcement officials in Faneuil Hall. The meeting, which was closed to the general public, was billed as a briefing on the particulars of the USA PATRIOT Act, a federal anti-terrorism initiative, according to The Boston Globe….

OUTSIDE

Why can’t we cover up this boob?

BY CAMILLE DODERO

This past Tuesday morning, US Attorney General John Ashcroft popped into Boston’s Faneuil Hall to deliver a speech about a little piece of legislation called the USA Patriot Act. What Ashcroft – or ASHHOLE, ASSKKKROFT, PROTO FACIST, or THE MAN MORE EVIL THAN STEINBRENNER, as the placards anticipating his arrival preferred to call him – had to say about the USA Patriot Act was as foully predictable as flatulence after a bowl of baked beans. But the horde hanging outside couldn’t be sure of that until Ashcroft was safely whisked away around 10 a.m., en route to a similar engagement in New York City. Indeed, Ashcroft’s national “public relations” spree to promote his invasive law doesn’t include the public at all – and that flagrantly intentional oversight was simply more fuel for the ire raging outside the historic building.

“Let the people in!” the hundreds (final estimates hovered around 1000) standing on the cobblestones chanted. “Let the people in!” they continued, followed by “What’s the big secret?” and “Closed meetings for closed minds!” And they sang “Hey, John Ashcroft!” to the tune of “Frère Jacques”:

Hey, John Ashcroft! Hey, John Ashcroft!

Why are you, why are you

Spying on our country?

We don’t think it’s funny.

Shame on you. Shame on you!

[….]

Issue Date: September 12 – 18, 2003

Yeah, for sure, Boston just loved John Ashcroft (r).

Offered without comment

16 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bombing, Boston, clueless, Marathon, missouri, right wingnuts

Via Twitter:

John Hancock @johnrhancock

Anybody else out there wishing John Ashcroft was still the USAG? #boston. 7:35 PM – 15 Apr 13

John Hancock @johnrhancock

Christian, Husband, father, GOP operative, committed conservative, piano player

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich 12h

No. RT @johnrhancock: Anybody else out there wishing John Ashcroft was still the USAG? #boston.7:53 PM – 15 Apr 13

SharkFu ‏@SharkFu

Not even John Ashcroft. RT @FiredUpMissouri RT @johnrhancock: Anybody else out there wishing John Ashcroft was still the USAG? #boston.7:52 PM – 15 Apr 13

Campaign Finance: very interesting

16 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2014, 2016, Attorney General, campaign finance, Chris Koster, governor, Jay Nixon, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission, State Auditor, Tom Schweich

Yesterday the April quarterly campaign finance reports were due at the Missouri Ethics Commission.

For Attorney General Chris Koster (D):

C031159: Missourians For Koster

[….]

Information Reported On: 2013 – April Quarterly Report

Beginning Money on Hand $142,933.06

Monetary Receipts + $374,100.11

Monetary Expenditures – $90,578.52

Contributions Made – $5,000.00

Other Disbursements – $2,106.36

Subtotal     $276,415.23

Ending Money On Hand   $419,348.29

[emphasis added]

Another eight to ten million to go for 2016.

For State Auditor Tom Schweich (r):

C111150: Friends Of Tom Schweich

[….]

Beginning Money on Hand $77,254.83

Monetary Receipts + $520.00

Monetary Expenditures – $4,843.58

Contributions Made – $1,000.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     ($5,323.58)

Ending Money On Hand   $71,931.25

[emphasis added]

State Auditor Tom Schweich (r) may be running for reelection in 2014. And maybe something else in 2016.

And, Governor Jay Nixon (D) who may be running for something in 2016:

C001135: A Better Missouri With Governor Jay Nixon

[….]

Beginning Money on Hand $413,395.73

Monetary Receipts + $448,237.96

Monetary Expenditures – $407,102.68

Contributions Made – $27,000.00

Other Disbursements – $0.00

Subtotal     $14,135.28

Ending Money On Hand   $427,531.01

[emphasis added]

The man with the golden touch…

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Campaign Finance: Two PACs, passing in the night….
  • Campaign Finance: defunding public education
  • Campaign Finance: Sadly, no
  • “What does God need with a starship?”
  • Are the Communists hiding in your closet right now?

Recent Comments

Yes, he really is th… on Mark Alford (r) –…
Campaign Finance: Ma… on Campaign Finance: Missouri is…
Campaign Finance: Ma… on Campaign Finance: for billiona…
Campaign Finance: fr… on Campaign Finance: the money be…
Campaign Finance: fr… on Campaign Finance: dismantle th…

Archives

  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,059,941 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...