• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: 2nd amendment

Expecting anything different?

21 Monday Jun 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2nd amendment, General Assembly, guns, HB 85, missouri, nullification, St. Louis, Tishaura Jones, U.S. Constitution

Nullification? Right.

Tishaura Jones (D) [2019 file photo]

St. Louis City, County Sue to Block New State Law That Nullifies Federal Gun Laws, Ties Hands of Law Enforcement
STL City and County filed a joint lawsuit seeking to block a new law which prevents local law enforcement from following federal gun laws.

June 21, 2021

Today, St. Louis City and St. Louis County filed a joint lawsuit seeking to block a new law which makes Missouri a sanctuary state for gun violence by preventing local law enforcement from following federal gun laws. Filed in Cole County Circuit Court, today’s lawsuit asks the court to declare the new law unconstitutional under the federal and state constitutions.

Missouri has some of the weakest gun regulations in the country and one of the highest rates of gun violence deaths per capita. But the state legislature passed HB 85 in an effort to prevent enforcement of federal gun laws in Missouri. The new law has already disrupted law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels:

The United States Department of Justice declared that the new law unconstitutionally interferes with federal law enforcement and threatens the ability of local police departments to access federal grants.

The State of Missouri withdrew its prosecutors from assisting in federal drug, carjacking, and gun cases in St. Louis.

A police chief in the St. Louis region resigned after Governor Parson signed the bill, noting that the new law will “chill the legitimate peacekeeping duties of police.”

“2020 was the deadliest year of gun violence in our state’s history, and now the Missouri legislature is throwing up barriers to stop police from doing their most important job —preventing and solving violent crime,” said St. Louis Mayor Tishaura O. Jones. “This harmful and unconstitutional law takes away tools our communities need to prevent gun violence. I’m proud to partner with St. Louis County in this effort to protect our region and stop this law.”

“This new law is like the state holding out a sign that says ‘Come Commit Gun Violence Here,’” said St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page. “We can’t expect people to stay in St. Louis or to move their businesses here if we don’t do everything we can to reduce gun violence in the region, but this new law sends the opposite message to our residents and business community.”

The City and County are seeking an injunction of unconstitutional provisions and ultimately for the law to be overturned on constitutional grounds. The entities will jointly argue that HB 85 violates the U.S. Constitution Supremacy Clause, which provides that federal law preempts state law, and also is in contravention of other Missouri law.

City County Petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunction – HB85 [pdf]

Eric Schmitt’s (r) record will remain intact.

Previously:

The Supremacy Clause don’t mean shit (June 12, 2021)

Eric Schmitt (r) wouldn’t know the U.S. Constitution if it smacked him upside the head (June 17, 2021)

Roy Blunt and the NRA: Married on the way to the bank

15 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2nd amendment, Florida shooting, Gun policy, Gun regulations, Margery Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting, mass shootings, NRA, republicans, Roy Blunt, School shootings

According to The New York Times Roy Blunt is one of the top ten “career”recipients of NRA largess in the congress. His take: $4,551,146. That’s right. Our boy got himself over four million of those NRA dollars. And I don’t think anyone would disagree that he’s done himself proud when it comes to earning his fee.

All of which prompts one to ask what he has to say about the latest mass shooting event at a school, a spree that took 17 lives and wounded at least 12 other children. The Sedalia Democrat offers the following quote:

In an interview, Blunt said that “I don’t think we have enough information yet to know that a change in any law would have impacted what happened in Florida.” But, referring to reports that the FBI had been warned by threats that the killer had made on social media, Blunt added: “Whether it is bizarre anti-social behavior or terrorist activity, when people see something they should say something.”You have got a guy parading around in a gas mask with weapons making threats and putting that on social media; that needs to be reported,” Blunt, R-Mo., said. “And the people that is [sic] reported to need to respond to that report.”

Blunt echoed the president in his imputation that the correct way to protect against mass school shootings would be for the “normal” folks to report aberrant behavior on the part of troubled individuals. Happened here, didn’t work, not going to work, just stigmatizes folks with emotional problems.

In the past Blunt has resorted overtly to the tack taken by Donald Trump today which is that it is mental illness that kills people, not guns – in spite of the fact that those suffering mental illness have been shown to more often suffer violence than they are to commit violent acts,  that when they do act out violently, they themselves have frequently been previously victimized, and they are more likely to do so within institutional settings rather than in public.

All of this is just a way to frame the simple-minded NRA bumper sticker that says in one variant or another that “people kill people, not guns.” If Kim Jong-un, who may or may not be mentally unstable, doesn’t realize that he’s dealing with a possible mental case in the White House, push comes to shove, and hundreds of folks, possibly in the U.S. as well as North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are killed, will Republicans excuse the holocaust with a similar slogan: Crazy people kill people, not bombs? Funny that. Or not.

Of course, the real thrust of Blunt’s response was that he just doesn’t have enough facts to say anything substantive. While I know he’s unlikely to read this screed, I’d sill like to supply him with a few hard and fast facts:

  1. A disturbed young man, who, incidentally, had been reported and investigated by the authorities, was able to legally buy a military-grade weapon.
  2. President Trump, in his haste to destroy any remnants of Obama-style common-sense regulation, stopped a rule that would have made it more difficult for the mentally-ill to buy firearms.
  3. Republicans like Blunt have consistently refused to vote for legislation that regulated civilian acquisition of military-grade weapons in spite of the fact that they seem to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
  4. A conservative analysis by The Washington Post tells us that “more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.”
  5. In the first 45 days of this year there have been six school shootings that have injured students.
  6. States are skint. They aren’t willing or able to pay to supply the school security officers that schools are requesting. Florida schools, scene of the most recent shooting, are among those that have experienced growing enrollments but have received less money to pay for necessities like increased security for which they have requested funding.
  7. A spate of studies report that states – and developed countries – with more guns have more homicide deaths and suicides. States and countries with better regulated gun ownership have fewer.

There are lots more facts like these. And I’m willing to bet that Blunt knows a few of them already. He just doesn’t care.

Nor, as Blunt’s GOP pals like to claim, do these facts suggest that gun ownership should be illegal; nobody’s 2nd amendment rights should be violated. But we have to be clear that the Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, authored by conservative, gun-loving Judge Antonin Scalia, specifies that that the right to own firearms is subject to regulation, specifically in the case of “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.”

So what’s keeping the pot boiling for a dangerously out of control NRA, an organization that wants to persuade us that even talking dirty about guns is not only a violation of a poorly understood 2nd amendment, but an invitation to “jack-booted government thugs” to steal our liberties? Look no further than Senator Roy Blunt and an NRA-whipped GOP.

But hey! Four million dollars is one heckava payout. And Blunt wasn’t even number one on the list.

2nd amendment beserkers in Poplar Bluff

14 Thursday Dec 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2nd amendment, Daniel Moore, Denis Kearby, guns, missouri, Poplar Bluff

Guess what? Wanna have a little fun with that pesky liberal down the street? Just take  your gun and wave it around in his/her front yard. Pretend you’re going to shoot out his/her windows while you’re at it. And don’t worry about a law enforcement response. After all,  Poplar Bluff Attorney Daniel Moore has tendered his belief that you’d be within your 2nd amendment rights.

Seems that Moore’s client, Poplar Bluff’ Streets Superintendent, Denis Kearbey, took his “short-barrel shotgun to the clerk’s office on Sept. 12, pumped it several times and asked if the female clerk was scared.”

But hey, Kearbey declared later, after first denying the incident, he was only teasing the clerk about being a liberal – you know, having a little wingnut fun. If a good ol’ boy can’t tease one a them libtards with a potentially lethal weapon, we’ll never MAGA.

Kearbey’s now free on $25,000 bond and has pleaded not guilty, because, why not? In the words of his attorney, the aforementioned Daniel Moore: “Kearbey has a right to carry a firearm and denies any wrongdoing.” Moore added: “Fortunately the Second Amendment gives you quite a bit of protection.”

Concealed carry, SB656 and the Constitution

10 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

2nd amendment, concealed carry, missouri, SB 656

Here’s something I hope Governor Nixon takes into consideration before he signs SB 656  which  would allow Missourians to carry concealed guns without a permit everywhere open carry is legal:

A federal appeals court decided Thursday that people do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.

Overturning a three-judge panel’s decision, a larger group of judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said California counties may require people who want permits for concealed guns to show a specific reason why they need the weapons.

“The 2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” the court ruled, 7-4.

There’s lots more that will be said on this topic in potential court cases I am sure, but I, for one, am overjoyed by this reminder of the constitutional limitations of “constitutional carry,” which is what the 2nd Amendment brigade calls the situation that would be created by the provisions of SB 656. Even the gun-loving Supreme Court Justice Scalia, darling of the NRA, was clear in his opinion defining gun ownership as a constitutional right that “regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment.”

SB 656 loosens up lots of other restraints on guns that are just plain scary:

… .The bill will put more guns in more places and at the same time dismantle permit and training requirements for people who want to carry hidden, loaded guns in public. It also includes a so-called “stand your ground” provision — a provision that upends traditional self-defense law and emboldens individuals to settle conflicts by reaching for their firearms, even when they can clearly and safely walk away from any danger.

The appeals court decision underlines the fact that the Governor doesn’t have to expose us to this craziness. He doesn’t have to sanction turning Missouri into an armed war zone unless he really wants to. We’ll see if he gets the message.

More to the point, though, does the Democratic candidate for governor, Chris Koster, get the message? Or will he join the covey of GOP gubernatorial primary candidates for whom guns are an essential campaign tool – along with the promise of unrestricted access which those ads imply?

Gun culture in Missouri

19 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2nd amendment, gun deaths, gun violence, guns, Lake Ozark, Missuri, SB656

Numbers tell stories. Based on statistics from 2010, 24/7 Wall St. ranked Missouri eighth for overall gun violence. Missouri had 14 gun injury deaths per each 100,000 people – only 11 states had a higher rate: Louisiana (19.2); Alabama (16.2); Mississippi (16.1); Montana (15.4); Wyoming (15.1); New Mexico (14.9); Nevada (14.5);Arizona (14.6); Arkansas and Oklahoma (14.4); West Virginia (14.1). The story these numbers tell isn’t surprising. Almost all of these states are poor, Southern or Western and deep red or getting redder. Missouri isn’t quite as poor or – maybe – as red as some, but given the inclinations of the Republicans who run our legislature, we’ll soon be charter members of the hard-scrabble, hand-to-mouth, red-state contingent. (You want to see what red-state economic theory does in action, read about the Kansas experiment – which our own GOPers are eager to emulate).

This is true when it comes to rational gun policy as well. Like Missouri, none of the states listed above require permits to purchase handguns or, for that matter, most other types of guns. In Missouri, under the rubric of an almost universally misunderstood 2nd amendment, the good ol’ boys in the state legislature take turns trying to see who can introduce the most extreme laws to deregulate gun ownership. Governor Jay Nixon just vetoed this year’s iteration, Senate Bill 656, which would have “forced Missouri cities to allow teenagers to carry loaded firearms in public, would have allowed school districts to arm teachers, and would have made it impossible for parents to find out if someone is carrying a concealed firearm in their children’s classrooms.”

The bill would also have denied local jurisdictions their current right to forbid open carry which, in the absence of local restrictions, is legal for those who hold a concealed carry permit. Gun religionists claim with – some justification – that a patchwork of local laws can lead to confusion, but more often they just repeat the 2nd amendment mantra and scoff at the fearful reaction that most sane people have when they see guns casually displayed in a commercial setting, often taking major umbrage at what they characterize as “the indoctrinated response in America” to notify the police when folks are scared. I suppose the unindoctrinated response to fear would be to pull out your own gun and start shooting. Somehow, it doesn’t strike me as preferable.

Just for funsies take a look at this trio who were arrested in Cape Girardeau while wandering around a mall sporting holstered handguns. These folks look basically normal if a bit on the hard side and they may be pussycats once one gets to know them, but if I met any of them (including the baby gunsel) in the aisle of a local store with guns on their hips, I’d quickly go the other way and call the police asap. Better safe than sorry. I’ve seen Natural Born Killers – and those folks were downright pretty. There’s something about a carrying a gun in a non-threatening, non-sporting environment that brands the mildest seeming folks as paranoid fools.

You want to get an idea about who belongs to the Missouri gun culture, just note the reaction of some citizens of Lake Ozark when the city recently decided to prohibit open carry in the interest of not scaring away tourists, the main source of local prosperity:

The city should not be treading on the Second Amendment for any reason, said Alderwoman Betsey Browning, who voted against the ordinance. “There are bad people in the world, and by golly if I need a gun I’m going to have a firearm at my side or in my purse,” Browning said. “I’m absolutely against this.”

Audience member Gail Maeder was even more direct.

“Just because somebody felt scared is not a good enough reason to pass an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment,” she said.

Now I would be interested in just how Alderwoman Browning knows that she is surrounded by so  many bad people that she has to go armed, what criteria she employs to recognize them so that she can shoot them, and when or if she ever actually encounters an aggressive bad person, I wonder whether said bad person’s badness will have been enhanced by the ready availability of guns just like that carried by the alderwoman. I seem to read of a constant stream of innocent people who are mistakenly shot when people like Alderwoman Browning get themselves worked up (see, for instance,  here). And guess what else happens in states with lots of guns:

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

Makes you feel real secure knowing that Alderwoman Browning has that gun, doesn’t it?

I ask you, do you want these folks, with their rigid, comic-strip understanding of the 2nd amendment, coupled with their total lack of respect for others, running around playing at being tough guys and gals in public places, not to mention dictating decisions about perfectly legal, 2nd amendment-compatible restrictions of gun ownership? Thanks to Governor Nixon, and barring an override of his veto, we have staved off the flood of gun craziness for one more year – or to put it more accurately, it won’t get any crazier than it is now – but unless something changes in Jefferson City, that may not continue to be the case and Missourians could find themselves regularly taking shelter from myriad shoot-outs of the O.K. Corral variety.

Next to last paragraph restored after being inadvertently omitted.  

If you had a choice would you choose Missouri?

02 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2nd amendment, Ben Harris, brain drain, Ed Schieffer, HB436, Keith English, Legislative veto, missouri, second amendent, T. J. McKenna

In an op-ed in Monday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jamie Merisotis of the Lumina Foundation noted that:

… the demand for skilled workers is growing, and there are thousands of good-paying jobs available right now around the state. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough college-educated residents to fill those positions. And unless the pace of degree attainment picks up significantly, Missouri won’t have enough talent to meet its future workforce needs.

While Mr. Meriotis went on to detail ways to graduate more students form Missouri colleges, the issue of “brain drain” – the retention of those graduates in Missouri – as well as enticing out-of-state college graduates to accept jobs in Missouri are equally important.

General wisdom has it that regions that do best at attracting college graduates are “economically vital as well as physically or culturally appealing.” Economic viability speaks for itself and Missouri obviously has some problems in this area.

Think, however, as well, about the state’s cultural appeal. Social culture and political culture are closely related, so to get a handle on what it is about Missouri that might be off-putting, it could be instructive to review some of the bills that were vetoed by Governor Nixon after this last legislative session, bills, for instance, to ward off non-existent threats from Sharia law, or to forbid any sustainability activities that might mirror the U.N.’s suggested (purely voluntary) Agenda 21 guidelines. An especially illustrative situation is that occasioned by the veto of HB436.

HB436 reflects the belief of some of the not-so-bright lights in the legislature that they can decide to “nullify” all federal gun laws – new federal laws as well as those that have been on the books for years – and prohibit their enforcement by federal officials. Additionally, the bill not only provides sanction for arming teachers, but specifies that they can be fired if they refuse to carry guns. Pure nuttery that contributes to Missouri’s growing reputation as a preserve for rightwing buffoons.

Of course this law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause and was quite correctly vetoed by Governor Nixon. However, it seems likely that the veto will be overturned and Missouri citizens will eventually have to pick up the costs of defending this exercise in idiocy in the courts – where it will almost decidedly be overruled.  

And what is worse, the Governor’s veto may be overturned by virtue of complicit Democrats in the House. Reps. Keith English (D-68), Ben Harris (D-118), and T.J. McKenna (D-114) have all indicated that they’ll vote to override. Even worse yet is that two of these Democrats don’t even necessarily think that HB436 is a good law – they’re just going along to get along. Rep. McKenna noted that:

We love our guns and we love hunting. It’s not worth the fight for me to vote against it, […]  the bill is completely unconstitutional, so the courts are going to have to throw it out.

Rep. Harris was even more explicit about why he plans to vote to override:

“Being a rural-area Democrat, if you don’t vote for any gun bill, it will kill you,” Harris said. “That’s what the Republicans want you to do is vote against it, because if you vote against it, they’ll send one mailer every week just blasting you about guns, and you’ll lose” re-election.”

Rep. Ed. Schieffer (D-011), who claims to be still undecided, has much the same message – which is that lots of Missourians won’t tolerate common sense in their lawmakers:

“I personally believe that any higher court will probably rule this particular gun law unconstitutional – on that, I probably agree that the governor’s right,” Schieffer said. “But I may end up still voting for the gun bill, because I don’t want to be on record for not supporting guns.”

Rep. Keith English alone seems to be willing to overlook the legal problems with the poorly conceived bill,  instead evidently subscribing to the prevailing GOP belief that the mere mention of the 2nd amendment, however inappropriate, banishes the rest of the constitution:

“I represent Democrats, of course, but I’m also a gun supporter,” English says. “This is a huge Second Amendment supporting state. I’m here to speak for those people.”

So there you have it. This is the type of crazy political culture that Missouri has to offer its young college graduates or high achieving graduates from other states who may be considering a job offer in Missouri. If you were a bright young thing and the world were your oyster, would you be willing to locate in a state that has become a laughing stock, where government is obviously tanking, and a sizable majority of its citizens don’t care so long as their lawmakers talk that good ol’ 2nd amendment talk?  

Business as usual for the NRA and political enablers

20 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

2nd amendment, assault weapons, Diane Feinstein, gun-violence, guns, missouri

Within the past couple of days police managed to thwart a planned mass shooting at the University of Central Florida. It would have been a massacre had things broken just a little differently.

Yesterday saw the Campus of Indiana University Purdue’s Indianapolis Campus locked down for several hours after sightings of a gunman on campus were reported. Turned out to be a false alarm, but it’s a sign of the times that police can’t afford anything other than an all out push to forestall a possible tragedy.

You want to know how frequent this type of event is, just search “university” and “gunman” on Google. Varying the second search term gets even more hits. Count the number of times you find the perpetrators armed with semi-automatic, high-capacity guns. Weapons of choice for campus attacks seem to be assault weapons equipped with the capacity to shoot many rounds. So much fun, evidently, to shoot fish in a barrel while equipped with military-style weapons. (And no – I don’t want anyone to be shot in the cross-fire from gun-carrying students and faculty wildly responding to a mass-shooter.)

Then recollect that the Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v Heller, that affirmed the right of individuals to own guns, also affirmed the legitimacy of reasonable restrictions.

Recently, Harry Reid dropped Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed ban on military assault-type weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines from gun-violence legislation currently making its way through congress. Fun fact: these are among the characteristics described by the NRA’s propaganda blitz on behalf of the gun industry as “cosmetic.”

One more piece of grist for the mill:

The NRA donated $841,337 to Republicans and $115,150 to Democrats in the 2012 election cycle.

Is the picture clear enough for you yet?

* Slightly corrected: Original fifth paragraph merged with third.



 

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • 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

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

  • 839,446 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...