It's Time to Get in the NRA's Face in a Major Way

Having been a political activist for 25 years, one thing that drives me to distraction is the difference - perhaps laziness is the better word - of so many Americans when it comes to paying attention to politics and getting off one's butt to support responsible candidates and to oppose toxic elements in political life.  Few organizations are more toxic in American politics than the NRA which basically trades in death and puts gun manufacturers' profits above all else, including the lives of school students as demonstrated by the NRA's opposition to any type of sane gun control legislation after every mass shooting.  Only in America does such carnage go on and on while NRA puppets in elected office do nothing by offer utterly worthless "thoughts and prayers."  A column in the New York Times exhorts Americans to get off their asses and do more than dwell in social media.  The rubber hits the road by confronting and getting in the faces of NRA bought politicians and voting them out of office.  Here are column excerpts: 

Cameron Kasky, a 17-year-old at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who survived last week’s mass shooting, wrote a beautiful essay for CNN.com that declared: “At the end of the day, the students at my school felt one shared experience — our politicians abandoned us by failing to keep guns out of schools. But this time, my classmates and I are going to hold them to account. This time we are going to pressure them to take action. This time we are going to force them to spend more energy protecting human lives than unborn fetuses.”

Cameron, God bless you for that sentiment. But just one piece of respectful advice: If your generation and mine want to get serious about a gun control crusade, we all need to get out of Facebook and into someone’s face: the N.R.A.’s.

This fight can’t be won on Twitter or Instagram. . . . . The N.R.A. is not just in the chat rooms. It’s in the cloakrooms of Congress and state legislatures. And it’s there with bags of money and votes it uses to reward lawmakers who do its bidding and hurt those who don’t.

I loved seeing the 100 students from your high school taking buses Tuesday to Florida’s capital to directly press lawmakers. That’s a great start. I hope every high school follows.
But, ultimately, nothing will change unless young and old who oppose the N.R.A. run for office, vote, help someone vote, register someone to vote or help fund someone’s campaign — so we can threaten the same electoral pain as the National Rifle Association, which, according to PolitiFact, spent $203.2 million between 1998 and 2017 funding its candidates, defeating gun control advocates and lobbying. This is not about persuading people with better ideas. We tried that. It’s about generating raw electoral power and pain.

Because most of the G.O.P. members of Congress who do the N.R.A.’s bidding care about only one thing: their jobs. The pay of a typical congressman is $174,000 — and free parking at Reagan National Airport — and they will sell themselves to whoever can generate the votes to enable them to keep both. . . . . This is primarily a G.O.P. problem today.

How do we know that? Read the paper or the web. The G.O.P., which claimed to stand for conservative family values, has prostrated itself before the most indecent person to ever occupy the White House — a man who lies as he breathes, smears poor, nonwhite nations and reportedly had sex with a porn star shortly after his wife delivered their son. But G.O.P. lawmakers are mute on this because President Trump energizes their base and ensures their $174,000-a-year jobs and free parking at Reagan National Airport.

Republicans won’t back common-sense gun laws that would protect fully developed human beings — because the N.R.A. energizes their base and funds their campaigns and ensures their $174,000-a-year jobs and free parking at Reagan National Airport.

This is a party whose “Freedom Caucus” was so obsessed with our rising national debt that it tried to prevent Barack Obama from spending a dime to stimulate our economy after it went deep into recession — but just voted to add $1 trillion to the debt for a corporate tax cut without regard for the burden put on our kids.

Trying to embarrass them to act on principle is wasted breath. . . . . They know full well that a common-sense banning of all military assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, or mandating universal background checks for gun buyers or to prevent terrorists and the mentally ill from buying guns, would not curb the constitutional right to bear arms.

They know full well that they’re in the grip of an N.R.A. cult, whose heart is so frozen, it’s content to watch innocent children and adults get gunned down weekly — rather than impose common-sense gun limits. They know all of this — but they suppress it, because they also know if they vote for common-sense gun laws, the N.R.A. will fund their next opponent.

Like I said, this is just about raw naked power, and that is what sensible gun control advocates have to generate more of now — in the form of votes and campaign funding. Otherwise nothing changes.

Keep speaking out, Cameron — but never underestimate what some people will do for a $174,000 job and free parking at Reagan National Airport.

 Many ask why the husband and I are so politically active and give money, provide housing to candidates' staff members, and use whatever influence we can muster to get voters out on election day to support good candidates.  The answers are easy.  First, it is a duty of Second, and more importantly, bad things happen when good people fail to act.  In 2016, far too many good people were lazy and failed to vote.  The result is the nightmare that occupies the White House.  Another is a GOP totally beholden to the NRA.  This can change, but people must get off their asses and and get to work NOW.  The 2018 midterms are a perfect opportunity to send the GOP and NRA a message.  And remember that silence equals complicity.

Putin Imposes Secret Sanctions on Pro-Gay Obama Campaign Donors

I try to not bash Vladimir Putin too frequently, but sometimes, it is hard to do.  Today is one of those days.  Yesterday I noted that Putin is playing the Russian people much as Hitler played the 1930's Germans.  Now, in retaliation for Obama's criticism of Putin's anti-gay policies and sanctions America and some EU countries have imposed on Russia in the wake of the undeclared invasion of the non-Crimea portions of Ukraine, in a school yard bully like move, Putin has imposed secret sanctions on Obama's gay campaign contribution bundlers and other pro-gay donors.  The Daily Beast looks at Putin's childish hissy fit.  Here are excerpts:

The Kremlin has expanded its secret “black list” of Americans banned from Russia to include Obama campaign fundraisers tied to the LGBT community and senior Congressmen, diplomatic sources tell The Daily Beast. Moscow’s list, these sources say, was expanded in retaliation to the Obama administration’s attack on the assets of key business associates of Vladimir Putin in March.

[U]nlike the United States, which made all three rounds of sanctions public, the Russian government only publicly revealed one list of sanctioned Americans, which included top Senators and White House officials. The contents of the subsequent additions to the Russian list, however, remain officially undisclosed.

[T]he second American list was more personal, going after big businessmen in Russia who were very close to Putin—his moneymen and his cronies. Putin said in late April that he was baffled that the Americans were targeting the Russian oligarchs.

So when the Kremlin responded, the Russians had to get a little creative. Many top American businessmen are not necessarily close to President Obama personally, so Moscow chose to sanction top Obama campaign bundlers as the closest means of direct retaliation.

Diplomatic sources confirmed to The Daily Beast that the expanded and still-secret Russian sanctions list includes five top Obama campaign bundlers as well as about a dozen top Senators and Congressmen who were not included in the first list. The names of the specific bundlers remains a secret, but a focus was put on those with ties to the gay and lesbian community; it’s a reflection of the ongoing fight between the Kremlin and the White House over Russia’s laws punishing the promotion of LGBT “propaganda.”

Supreme Court: Politicians Can Now Be Totally Bought By the Rich

The rationale behind campaign finance laws has always been to stem government corruption with a view that if the wealthy or corporations could give unlimited funds to candidates running for office it ultimately was no different than bribing them once they were in office.  Sadly, a majority on the United States Supreme Court apparently has no problem with politicians literally being for sale to the highest bidder and bribes contributions made before they are elected somehow do not matter.  Or at least that is the only conclusion to be reached from yesterday's ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission limiting what can be considered bribes under any rational basis is a "unconstitutional" restriction on free speech.  Anyone who doesn't believe there is a direct "quid pro quo" for huge campaign contributions is living in a fantasy world.  The Washington Post looks at this devastating ruling which will likely spur the nation on towards a return to the worst aspects of the Gilded Age.  Here are editorial highlights:

THE SUPREME Court on Wednesday overturned yet another federal law meant to check corruption and influence-peddling in national politics. The ruling shows two things: The Roberts Court’s destructive view on these matters wasn’t changed by the backlash to its Citizens United holding, and Congress must respond by designing new rules that can pass the court’s overly skeptical review. If lawmakers tackle the issue forthrightly, they have some workable options.

The court eliminated an overall limit on how much donors could give to candidates, parties and various other committees over the course of an election cycle. The idea had been to make it harder for big donors to circumvent limits on direct donations to candidates by siphoning them through other channels, or for political leaders to ask for large checks from wealthy individuals.

In the plurality opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. held that the overall donation ceiling is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech because the government can regulate political giving only in order to prevent “quid pro quo corruption,” which is something like direct bribery. The chief justice insisted that combating the purchase of political influence and access is not a sufficiently worthwhile goal. Elsewhere, and without really owning up to it, he overturned a previous court holding in Buckley v. Valeo , the controlling precedent on the constitutionality of campaign finance limits. So much for the judicial restraint that Justice Roberts once promised. 

Individuals, corporations and unions could spend vast amounts of money to manipulate federal elections, sometimes secretly, under fig-leaf restrictions that hardly reduce the potential for corruption or the appearance of it.  

There is one particularly productive response to the Roberts Court that lawmakers should be able to enact immediately: requiring more prompt reporting about where political cash is coming from and where it is going. Americans would be able to evaluate the interests behind the candidates competing for their votes, and members of the court have repeatedly said that new transparency rules would promote accountability and fight corruption without impermissibly infringing on free speech. 

Too bad, then, that Republicans have lately opposed this common-sense reform.

Expect things in the political realm to get much worse.  We will now have the best government one can buy.  The Koch brothers must be celebrating. 

Anti-Gay Groups Donating Heavily to Virginia GOP Ticket

Anti-gay extremists Mark Obenshain, Ken Cuccinelli and "Bishop" E. W. Jackson

As this blog has stressed many times, the current Virginia GOP statewide slate was nominated by the Christofascist elements of the Virginia GOP base.  These nominations were the result of what basically constituted a coup against establishment elements of the Virginia GOP and shut out moderate and sane voters from a primary contest which the extremist candidates could not in likelihood have won.  Thus, it should come as no surprise that anti-gay Christofascist groups have been donating heavily to the GOP ticket candidates.  The Washington Blade looks at this phenomenon.  Here are excerpts:

The latest campaign finance reports that Virginia’s Republican candidates for statewide office filed last week indicate they continue to receive significant financial support from social conservatives and anti-LGBT groups.

The campaign finance report that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed with the Virginia Board of Elections on Oct. 15 notes Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell gave the gubernatorial hopeful $19,665 on Sept. 12.

Morton, who opposed the gay group GOProud’s participation in the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference and received an award during last year’s Values Voter Summit, has given the Cuccinelli campaign a total of $25,878. Morton also gave $1,000 to state Sen. Mark Obenshain(R-Harrisonburg)’s attorney general bid on Sept. 30, according to campaign finance records.

Campaign finance reports indicate the Family Research Council Action PAC on Sept. 30 made a $5,000 contribution to E.W. Jackson’s campaign; he’s running for lieutenant governor. The group also donated $20,000 to Cuccinelli’s campaign on Aug. 31.

Obenshain’s campaign on Sept. 10 received a $10,000 contribution from Pat Robertson, according to a campaign finance report it filed with the Virginia Board of Elections on Oct. 15. The anti-gay televangelist also gave $2,500 to Jackson’s campaign on Aug. 31.

Foster Friess, who backed former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s 2012 presidential bid, on Sept. 19 gave Cuccinelli’s campaign $20,000. Campaign finance reports further indicate the billionaire businessman has thus far contributed $50,000 to the attorney general’s gubernatorial campaign.

John Rocovich, Jr., a member of the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors who led efforts to remove sexual orientation from the university’s anti-discrimination policy in 2003 when he was rector, has given $38,986 in cash and in-kind contributions to Cuccinelli’s campaign. He has also contributed $7,500 to Jackson’s bid and another $18,750 in cash and in-kind contributions to Obenshain’s campaign.

The Family Foundation, a Richmond-based group that supports the commonwealth’s constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage and opposes LGBT-specific measures in the General Assembly, has also contributed to the three men’s campaigns.

Cuccinelli’s, Jackson’s and Obenshain’s Democratic opponents and LGBT rights advocates note these contributions come as no surprise considering the three men’s opposition to marriage for same-sex couples and other gay-specific measures in the commonwealth.

Obenshain sponsored a bill that Gov. Bob McDonnell signed into law in March that bans public universities from denying recognition and funding to student organizations that discriminate in their membership based on sexual orientation and other categories that federal law does not protect. He also opposed a measure a Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee in February tabled that would have banned discrimination against LGBT state employees.

“Ken Cuccinelli has spent his career demonizing and insulting gay Virginians,” McAuliffe campaign spokesperson Josh Schwerin told the Blade. “It’s no surprise that some of his biggest donors would have equally offensive records.”

Equality Virginia Executive Director James Parrish noted Cuccinelli, Jackson and Obenshain all have a record of “being openly hostile” to LGBT Virginians through their own statements or their legislative actions.

“It’s not surprising that Pat Robertson, Family Research Council and other opponents of fairness and equality are funding the most right-wing, anti-gay, anti-choice ticket to ever run for statewide office in Virginia,” gay state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) added. “They’re not just conservatives; they are zealots on a mission and it’s a common mission that some of their most prominent donors share.”

I continue to urge every fair minded Virginian to get out an vote against the GOP slate on November 5, 2013.  For out of state readers, PLEASE urge family members and friends who live in Virginia, to vote against Ken Cuccinelli, "Bishop" E.W. Jackson, and Mark Obenshain on November 5, 2013.  It is critical for Virginia and the nation that this extremist ticket lose and lose badly.

Why Was Cuccinelli's Office Was Representing Energy Companies Against Virginia Citizens?

It seems that more and more questions keep arising from the recently disclosed role that one of Ken Cuccinelli's staff attorneys in the Virginia Attorney General's Office was providing to energy companies being sued by southwestern Virginia landowners.   One thing that is clear, however, is that Cuccinelli has lied about his office's involvement.  Oh, and did I mention that one of the companies receiving unwarranted legal advice is the subsidiary of a corporation that gave $114,044.00 to Cuccinelli's gubernatorial campaign?  Cuccinelli is not only a right wing extremist, but he is also a liar and has no regard for ethics.  Money and power would seem to be his real gods despite his feigned religiosity which, in my view derives from him being a self-loathing closet case (I am still waiting for someone to provide sworn proof of the rumors I continue to hear).  The Washington Post provides more details on this very questionable involvement of the Attorney General's office and Cuccinelli's lying about it.  Here are excerpts:

THE CONDUCT of the Virginia attorney general’s office under Ken Cuccinelli (R) has raised eyebrows almost from the start of his tenure. There was the troubling investigation of a global warming researcher, the ideological attacks on abortion and gay rights, the belated recusal from a case in which Mr. Cuccinelli may have had a conflict of interest. Add now to the list criticism from a federal judge about the dubious role of the attorney general’s office in advising energy companies being sued by southwestern Virginia landowners. A footnote is the revelation that the parent company of one firm is a major contributor to Mr. Cuccinelli’s campaign for governor.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent took aim at the relationship, revealed in a series of e-mails between an assistant attorney general who advises the Virginia Gas and Oil Board, Sharon Pigeon, and the two Pittsburgh-area companies, EQT Production Co. and CNX Gas Co., involved in a series of lawsuits over natural gas royalties. “Shockingly,” wrote the magistrate in a June 5 opinion recommending certification of the cases as a class-action suit, “these emails show that the Board, or at least Pigeon, has been actively involved in assisting EQT and CNX with the defense of these cases, including offering advice on and providing information for use on the Motions before the court.” At stake in the case, according to the Associated Press, are tens of millions of dollars that attorneys for the plaintiffs say are owed to thousands of landowners for extraction of methane gas from underground coal beds.

The state is not a defendant in the case and, according to a statement from the attorney general’s office, intervened for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Virginia’s gas and oil law: “Our office’s role is not to provide advice to any private party in this case.” After the Bristol Herald Courier published the e-mails that seemingly showed legal advice being offered (one subject line read “Confidential Joint Defense Atty Work Product”), the attorney general’s statement was amended to acknowledge that the “emails may have come across as a bit overzealous.”  


Don Barrett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told us that issues about the constitutionality of Virginia law were long ago settled and that another attorney representing the state, not Ms. Pigeon, was involved. He branded as “nonsense” any notion Ms. Pigeon cooperated with both sides, noting the e-mails were obtained by subpoena. “I’m not involved in Virginia politics, he said, “(it’s) not my business and I don’t know Mr. Cuccinelli or [Democratic candidate for governor Terry) McAuliffe . . . but we have been outraged that the state of Virginia chose to get in bed with companies trying to cheat these people.”

“Shockingly” was the word employed by the judge. But, given Mr. Cuccinelli’s track record in office, it was not entirely unexpected.

Cuccinelli is a dangerous menace and MUST be defeated in November.