Does It Make A Difference If The President Is A Truculent, Ill-Advised Imbecile?

Nikki Haley by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday Señor Trumpanzee announced, as expected, that he's withdrawing the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, "reneging," as NBC put it, "on a landmark pact and raising the question of whether Tehran might respond by resuming its frozen weapons program." Babbling like a psychotic money, Señor T imagines he got even with with Obama for making fun of him at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011. Trumpanzee: "It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement. The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal."

Trump further said that he would impose the "highest level" of sanctions, which would not only affect Iran but other countries that do business with it. The Treasury Department said a series of primary and secondary sanctions-- those affecting American and foreign partners of Iran-- would go back into effect after wind-down periods specified by law.

...If Iran seeks nuclear weapons, he said, it will face "bigger problems than it has ever had before."

But the move also raises two important questions for the Trump administration and the international community: whether Iran will respond by resuming its quest for nuclear weapons-- and whether reneging on the Iran pact might affect North Korea's willingness to cut a denuclearization deal of its own with the president.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in the air on his way to North Korea during the announcement, Trump said. Critics of Tuesday's move said Trump is giving North Korea little reason to trust him.

"We are basically just going back on our word," said Jon Wolfstahl, who was the National Security Council’s senior director for arms control and nonproliferation under Obama.

The withdrawal of the U.S. leaves a big hole at the negotiating table after Trump had sought over the past six months to force a new deal by threatening to scrap the existing one.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday that his country would remain engaged with the other signatories to the original deal.

"We've known for months that President Trump wouldn't be committed to this deal," he said. "The Iranian foreign ministry will continue talks with remaining countries in the deal."

French President Emanuel Macron, who spoke with Trump Tuesday morning, tweeted his "regret" over Trump's decision. "The nuclear non-proliferation regime is at stake," he wrote.

Alan Grayson mentioned something to me on the phone a few minutes ago that I don't think he'll mind me sharing: "Let’s see how people feel about this if Iran celebrates the Prophet’s Birthday (Nov. 20-21) by exploding a nuclear weapon." President Obama, reminding everyone about the difference between a thoughtful and literate president instead of a senile ape, posted a reaction on his Facebook page, asserting that "There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place."

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working-- that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest-- it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish-- its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes-- with Iran-- the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium-- the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust-- it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance-- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior-- and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies-- is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

There was also a joint statement-- in the form of a press release-- from Prime Minister May, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron.

It is with regret and concern that we, the Leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom take note of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States of America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Together, we emphasise our continuing commitment to the JCPoA. This agreement remains important for our shared security. We recall that the JCPoA was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in resolution 2231. This resolution remains the binding international legal framework for the resolution of the dispute about the Iranian nuclear programme. We urge all sides to remain committed to its full implementation and to act in a spirit of responsibility.

According to the IAEA, Iran continues to abide by the restrictions set out by the JCPoA, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The world is a safer place as a result. Therefore we, the E3, will remain parties to the JCPoA. Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement.

We urge the US to ensure that the structures of the JCPoA can remain intact, and to avoid taking action which obstructs its full implementation by all other parties to the deal. After engaging with the US Administration in a thorough manner over the past months, we call on the US to do everything possible to preserve the gains for nuclear non-proliferation brought about by the JCPoA, by allowing for a continued enforcement of its main elements.

We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements. The IAEA must be able to continue to carry out its long-term verification and monitoring programme without restriction or hindrance. In turn, Iran should continue to receive the sanctions relief it is entitled to whilst it remains in compliance with the terms of the deal.

There must be no doubt: Iran’s nuclear program must always remain peaceful and civilian. While taking the JCPOA as a base, we also agree that other major issues of concern need to be addressed. A long-term framework for Iran’s nuclear programme after some of the provisions of the JCPOA expire, after 2025, will have to be defined. Because our commitment to the security of our allies and partners in the region is unwavering, we must also address in a meaningful way shared concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its destabilising regional activities, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We have already started constructive and mutually beneficial discussions on these issues, and the E3 is committed to continuing them with key partners and concerned states across the region.

We and our Foreign Ministers will reach out to all parties to the JCPoA to seek a positive way forward.

Not everyone is opposed to what Trump did. Staten Island mafioso, Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm, recently released from prison and running for Congress, issued a statement too: "President Trump's decisive rejection of the terrible Iran Deal is yet another foreign policy victory that will make our country and the world a safer place. We cannot allow the world's leading state sponsor of terror to ever obtain nuclear weapons, and the deal devised by Barack Obama's Administration did nothing to protect our long-term interests while giving away massive concessions to the regime in Tehran. The financial concessions Iran secured under the deal were further used to militarize the rogue state while funding violence and terrorism across the Middle East. As we have seen, President Trump's bold approach and leadership have already helped us reach historic steps toward peace and denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula. I am confident that today's decision will reinforce the pressure on Iran and ultimately lead to a final solution to the Iranian threat."

And Darrell Issa, forced to retire by Democrat Doug Applegate told whomever still listens to whatever he has to say, "I applaud President Trump’s bold leadership putting Iran, and its regional proxies, on notice and demanding that they permanently abandon any ambition to develop nuclear weapons. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated under the previous administration was irresponsible agreement that put our people at risk, left our most important allies in the Middle East in jeopardy, and did not achieve a single stated foreign policy objective of the United States. As I said in 2015: No nation has ever abandoned its nuclear ambitions without first agreeing to actually abandon its nuclear ambitions. Absent any commitment by the Iranian regime to permanently abandon its goal to develop nuclear weapons and a robust ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections regime, the JCPOA was not worth the paper it was written on. Needless to say Doug Applegate, a former frontline Marine Colonel, saw it very differently from Issa. "Trump’s repudiation of the Iran Deal is utterly ill-advised, insulting to our allies, a huge risk for little gain. The Russians will find it to their liking because disruption inevitably spikes oil prices and will help save the Russian economy... which is, of course, why they so love their useful fool, Donald Trump."

But most of the responses I hear were more in line with what Ro Khanna (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) had to say after the speech yesterday. Ro, a member of the House Armed Services Committee: "Withdrawing from the Iran Deal only sends the message that the US can't keep its commitments when administrations change and the only way to resolve disputes with us is through nuclear deterrence. Pulling out makes it more likely, not less, that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon."

Elizabeth Warren: "America should be a country that keeps it promises. The Obama Administration negotiated a landmark agreement to peacefully prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran Deal breaks our word, hurts our credibility with our allies, empowers Iranian hardliners, and doesn't make us any safer here at home. There's no question that Iran's government is a bad actor. But inspectors have independently verified that Iran has been complying with the deal-- a fact that even the Trump Administration has conceded. I'd rather the United States-- together with our allies-- counter Iran's bad behavior with the nuclear deal than without it. Instead, President Trump has pulled the US out without offering any real alternative to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, creating chaos and confusion across the Middle East, and the world. This isn't a strategy. It's a recipe for disaster."

Carol Shea Porter: "This decision will make Americans and people all across the world less safe. Before the agreement, Iran was months away from having a nuclear weapon. Now, they are at least a year away, and we can snap sanctions back into place immediately if they make any move towards developing a weapon. Under the deal, Iran cannot enrich uranium beyond 3.6 percent, far short of the 80 percent needed for a weapon. Iran agreed to give away 97 percent of its nuclear fuel. In addition, we forced them to take the vast majority of their centrifuges out of service, meaning it will be very difficult and noticeable if they try to enrich more material. And we mandated inspections, so if they try, we will know, and we can take appropriate action. The Iran Deal is not perfect. But we must consider the danger facing the world before the deal and the improved security we now enjoy because of it. We should side with our allies and stay with them in this deal. American leadership is at stake. You don’t do arms control agreements with your friends; you sign them with your enemies in order to make the world a safer place for all. Inspections have confirmed that Iran is complying with this deal. We should too. We have a responsibility to the people we swore to protect-- and to the world-- to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That’s what this deal does, and without it, we seriously risk another conflict in the Middle East. We should steer our nation down the pathway to a safer and more peaceful world, not the pathway to war."

Major General (Ret.) Paul Eaton released a statement through VoteVets that is very much worth thinking about:

If Iran is in compliance with the deal, as all indications say they are, then Donald Trump’s decision today is an active violation of a deal we signed.

The implications for the United States violating agreements it signed could be disastrous and far-reaching. It puts American security in greater danger, frays our alliances, and sends a message to North Korea, and others, that the word of the United States is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Democrats and Republicans alike-- even many who opposed the Iran Deal-- correctly note that losing our ability to monitor Iran's nuclear program blinds us in the face of great risk to us and to our ally, Israel. At a time of great peril around the world, the multilateral Iran deal is our best hope at keeping a nuclear Iran out of the question.

Now, unfortunately, America must rely on its allies to clean up Donald Trump's mess, and keep Iran from restarting its nuclear program. If they can do so, we may be able to avoid catastrophe.

But that will be a credit to them, not to Donald Trump.

Paul Ryan Runs Away

Because Blue America has spent years trying to defeat Paul Ryan, about a year ago we got two consecutive call, one from former Ryan opponent and one from state Senator Chis Larson, asking me to call a very politicized progressive union iron worker in Racine County and help persuade him to run against Ryan. The Wisconsin Working Families Party had already done the heavy lift and they just needed me to push Randy Bryce over the edge. It was a pleasure talking with him over the phone; he was a Bernie guy who had the right answer on every single question. In introduced him to two political operatives who could bring his vision to reality-- Bill Hyers, the guy who made that first video, and David Keith, the guy Randy hired as campaign manager. (Alan Grayson this morning: "David beats Goliath.")

Bryce made it clear he wasn't dependent on the DCCC, that he and his team were running an independent campaign without the establishment interference. And he caught on like wild fire while the DCCC sat around scratching its ass and wondering if they could bottle whatever Bryce was doing. They could ask Jared Golden, the whip of the Maine state legislature and a candidate for Congress very much like Bryce. "I think this confirms that when Democrats put forward strong working class candidates, like Randy Bryce and myself, who have served our country in the military and who have a record of fighting for workers and labor, GOP incumbents like Paul Ryan and Bruce Poliquin are in trouble and they know it."

Paul Ryan and Bruce Poliquin have been working together in the House since 2015, and in that time they've added trillions to our national debt, given mega tax cuts to the super rich donors who prop up their campaigns, and tried to take healthcare from millions of Americans. And they've had so much fun, doing it together...

Or take it from another veteran and working class candidate, DuWayne Gregory, executive of the Suffolk Count legislature, the progressive running for Peter King's seat. "Paul Ryan’s retirement is the biggest signal to date that the blue wave is coming. But it will take more to move more entrenched establishment type likes Peter King out of office. Rumors are he wants to 'pass on' the 2nd Congressional District seat to his daughter as some type heirloom. I’m working as hard as I can to make sure that plan doesn’t happen and this district has a representative interested in serving the people not his own personal interests."

Yeah, because-- as we've been predicting for 2 months-- Ryan pulled out of the race today. No one's going to get the pleasure of watching Bryce beat him on election night in November. Although everyone-- except maybe Beltway types-- knows Bryce already won-- scaring the 48 year old Ryan into a premature retirement. Moments after Ryan's announcement this morning that he's not seeking reelection Bryce's campaign released the following statement. 

Paul Ryan decided to quit today rather than face Randy Bryce and the voters. With nearly $5 million raised to date, a strong field program aided by organized labor, a broad coalition of support locally and nationally,  Randy Bryce is incredibly well positioned to be the next representative for the First District. Electorates far more conservative than Wisconsin's First have already elected Democrats in special elections in Wisconsin and across the country.

WI-01 is far less conservative than many districts that have already turned blue, in and outside of Wisconsin, this year. PA-18 went to Trump by nearly 20 points and it's rated by the Cook Political Report as an R+11 district. WI-01 is rated R+5 and Trump won the district by just 10 points. Senate District 10 in Wisconsin, which went to Trump by 17 points, also flipped blue in a special election in January of this year.

The Bryce campaign has organized a robust, grassroots campaign. Randy has raised $4.75 million to date, with 75 percent of those donations coming in small-dollar increments of $200 or less. That support allowed the campaign to begin airing TV ads in the district at the beginning of March, so voters are already becoming familiar with Randy's story.  The campaign is also building a strong grassroots field program. Over 140 county captains have already been trained to serve as volunteer leaders in their areas.

Even earlier this morning campaign manager David Keith sent out his own note:

After 20 years in Congress rewarding billionaires like Charles and David Koch, Paul Ryan took one look at Randy Bryce and this campaign and is throwing in the towel.

Think about that for a moment. The most powerful Republican in Congress is retiring because he's too scared of Randy Bryce and the hundreds of thousands of working people who have built this campaign.

When ordinary people work together, we can do the extraordinary.

Now it's on us to send a U.S. Army veteran, cancer survivor, and union ironworker with one heck of a mustache to fight for working people in D.C.

...[O]ne of the Republicans running in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District is an actual neo-Nazi.

I'd like to say he's unelectable, but look at who is in the White House. So, we can't take anything for granted. There's still time for Paul Ryan to get one of his rich buddies to run. And don't forget, this district has more registered Republicans than Democrats.

We still need to build this campaign and be ready for whatever comes next.

The little campaign that could! They chased Paul Ryan right out of Congress. Soon he'll be bumping into Steny Hoyer on K Street. Yesterday Axios was one of the first to ring the bell: "One of Washington’s best-wired Republicans said: 'This is a Titanic, tectonic shift. … This is going to make every Republican donor believe the House can’t be held.' The announcement will help Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in his fundraising because 'the Senate becomes the last bastion,' the Republican said." Yeah, it will also help Democratic candidates all over the country. Keith Ellison a few hours ago: "Speaker of the House Paul Ryan announced today that he will not seek reelection this November. After leading the charge to pass the historically unpopular GOP Tax Scam, targeting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security for huge cuts to pay for it, and enabling Donald Trump’s divisive agenda, he sees the writing on the wall. Americans are fed up, and even the GOP Speaker of the House recognizes that our momentum is real. This is the clearest sign yet that we’re on the right track to win majorities in Congress this November, and now we just need to keep the pressure on."

The Fallout Begins

Insiders expect a flood of mainstream congressional Republicans to run for the exits now. The first out after Ryan was Dennis Ross (FL-15), minutes after Ryan's announcement. His central Florida district runs from Brandon and the suburbs east of Tampa north through Lakeland up to Groveland and beyond past Florida's Turnpike. Obama lost the district both time, Trump won by 10 points and the PVI is R+6. There were half a dozen Democrats competing for the nomination, though none of them have raised the kind of money it would take to make the district competitive. Ross' excuse for backing out was "Eight years takes its toll on you. When you feel like a stranger in your hometown, it’s time to say, 'There’s got to be an exit strategy at some point.'" And here's Paul Ryan's worthless, embarrassing bullshit from this morning is in the video below.

One Republican congressman-- feeling the angst-- told right wing propagandist Erick Erickson at a Safeway-- on condition of anonymity-- that "it's like Forrest Gump won the presidency, but an evil, really fucking stupid Forrest Gump. He can't help himself. He's just a fucking idiot who thinks he's winning when people are bitching about him. He really does see the world as ratings and attention... But dammit he's taking us all down with him. We are well and truly fucked in November. Kevin [McCarthy] is already circling like a green fly circling shit trying to take Paul's [Ryan] job... [Lord's name in vain], at least I'll probably lose too and won't have to put up with that shit... Judiciary is stacked with a bunch of people who can win re-election so long as they don't piss off Trump voters in the primary. But if we get to summer and most of the primaries are over, they just might pull the trigger if the President fires Mueller. The shit will hit the fan if that happens and I'd vote to impeach him myself. Most of us would, I think. Hell, all the Democrats would and you only need a majority in the House. If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherfucker. Take him out with us and let Mike [Pence] take over. At least then we could sleep well at night."

Unfortunately, not all defective Republicans are retiring. McCarthy and Scalise are already battling over the speakership and, less blatantly, Mark Meadows is making a play for the neo-fascist vote in that battle. He most have been happy to hear that Virginia Foxx won't be retiring. We asked her progressive opponent, Jenny Marshall, if there's any chance Foxx would follow Ryan out the door. No good news on that front: "Virginia Foxx has stated recently that she has no intention of retiring from Congress even with vast majority of people in our district wishing she would. I have spoken with many Republicans who would like to see someone new take her seat. They, along with the Democrats and unaffiliated voters who do not subscribe to her narrow view of the world want a representative who actually represents them and their communities. Virginia Foxx is bought and paid for and we all know it. It's time for a change-- whether she thinks so or not."

 


UPDATE: Ryan's Legacy-- POS

This evening New Hampshire congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter tweeted the naked truth about Ryan and his cowardly decision to retire: "Good riddance to Paul Ryan, the most overrated fraud in American politics." Lawrence O'Donnell was as savage on his MSNBC show. Before either of them, though, Ronald Brownstein eviscerated what was left of Ryan's reputation, noting that The outgoing House speaker, more than any other lawmaker, paved the path for congressional Republicans’ subjugation to the president and that he personifies the Devil's Bargain the GOP struck with Trump.

Paul Ryan... will leave Washington carrying a more tarnished legacy-- as the most important enabler of Donald Trump.

No one in the GOP was better equipped, by position and disposition alike, to resist Trump’s racially infused, insular nationalism, or to define a more inclusive competing vision for the party. Instead, Ryan chose to tolerate both Trump’s personal excesses and his racially polarizing words and deeds as the price worth paying to advance Ryan’s own top priorities: cutting spending; regulations; and above all, taxes. The result was that Ryan, more than any other prominent Republican, personified the devil’s bargain the GOP has signed with Trump. And his departure crystallizes the difficult choices Republicans face as Trump redefines the party in his belligerent image.

...[A]fter Trump took office, Ryan blinked at confronting the president’s appeals to white racial resentments. Pressed for reaction to comments like Trump’s reported description of African nations as “shithole” countries, Ryan managed to mumble the bare minimum of plausible criticism: “The first thing that came to my mind was very unfortunate, unhelpful.” For most people genuinely distressed by Trump’s remarks, “unfortunate” and “unhelpful” were probably not the first words that came to mind; “racist” and “xenophobic” were.

Even more consequential was Ryan’s refusal to challenge Trump on behalf of the young undocumented immigrants included in former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Though the speaker repeatedly promised the “Dreamers” that Congress would protect them, he has allowed the legislation that would have preserved their legal status to wither, after Trump and House Republican hardliners insisted on linking it to poison-pill provisions that would slash legal immigration.

...The result of all this inaction has been the transformation of the GOP majorities into the see-no-evil Congress, with rank-and-file Republicans and their leaders repeating the same mantra: Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here... Ryan more than any other Republican paved the path for this subjugation to Trump-- if only because he provided the most viable rallying point for an alternative, optimistic, inclusive vision and yet chose to submit. He leaves the party lashed to a volatile, impulsive leader who is systematically stamping it as a vehicle for white racial resentment, even as the nation grows kaleidoscopically more diverse.

The former head of the NRCC, Tom Davis of Virginia, pointed out that "Ryan's exit is a destabilizing blow to Republicans’ 2018 plans on nearly every front" and that "I don’t know what he was thinking. I think this was a huge miscalculation. I think this is the captain abandoning the sinking ship."

Señor Trumpanzee's Shithole Shutdown

Congress will be seen as "a bunch of Washington bozos" if a shutdown occurs
-Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Last night the House passed HR 195, the Federal Register Printing Savings Act, the name meant to obscure what it really is and make it hard for voters to find a record of who voted for and who opposed the latest Republican short term CR (continuing resolution). It funds the government through Feb. 16 without dealing with DACA if the Senate passes it and Trump signs it. It passed 230-197. 11 Republicans voted NO and 6 fake-Democrats voted YES. The 6 Democraps who broke ranks and threw the DREAMers under the bus:

• Salud Carbajal (New Dem-CA)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)

Union activist Randy Bryce, the progressive Democrat who is driving Paul Ryan out of Congress, saw the vote last night in terms of solidarity: "There are times," he told us right after the vote, "when like-minded people need to stick together in order to stand up for the most vulnerable among us. This was one of those times. Disappointed in those who turned their backs."

Two of the Republicans who opposed it-- Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both from overwhelmingly Hispanic districts in South Florida-- did so because Ryan refused to deal with DACA. That was the overwhelming reason behind the nearly universal Democratic opposition in the House as well-- although that wasn't the only reason. Carol Shea Porter (D-NH), for example, told her constituents she opposed it because it failed to increase resources directed at the opioid epidemic fight, failed to provide redictable funding for our military and veterans’ access to health care, failed to help disaster-stricken communities and failed to extend funding for community health centers. She told New Hampshire residents that she was refusing "join House Republicans in abandoning the fundamental tasks of governing by kicking the can down the road yet again on the most basic responsibility we have, funding the government. In a hearing this afternoon, Admiral John M. Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, said, ‘I can’t in good conscience testify before Congress about naval power without mentioning the toxic and corrosive effect of nine years of continuing resolutions and years under the Budget Control Act…The absence of stable and adequate funding for defense makes everything that our sailors and their commanders do harder. On a scale of one to ten, the importance of stable and adequate funding scores an 11.’ This is now the fourth extension, and it is time to end the harmful cycle of lurching between short-term funding bills with the now monthly threat of a government shutdown. These monthly failures to govern are simply unacceptable, and they need to end. I will continue to stand up for Granite Staters, who are sick and tired of the constant dysfunction and excuses. We need to work together to find long-term solutions to the critical issues facing our nation, instead of kicking the can down the road one month at a time."

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) pointed out to her constituents in Seattle that "the majority has made a mockery of our legislative process. We just voted on the fourth continuing resolution in nearly four months. This makes no sense. It is no way to govern. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House, and-- still-- they’re scrambling at the last minute to piece together a patchwork budget that does nothing for the American people. It does nothing but kick the can down the road for another month. It ignores the real challenges we face. Once again, we watched Republicans put in the bare minimum. They denied relief for the 1.5 million Dreamers whose future hangs in the balance. They squashed the hopes of the 122 young people who lose their status each day we wait on a DACA fix. They turned their backs on the people suffering from our nation’s rampant opioid epidemic. They told kids who rely on the Children’s Health Insurance Program that their best interests don’t matter by ignoring our need for a permanent CHIP fix. I refuse to substitute one family's pain for another's gain. This is more than just a spending decision-- it is about the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. It is about the soul of our country. And our country deserves so much better than this."

A new Quinnipiac Poll asked: If there’s a government shutdown, who would you blame?

• Congressional Democrats- 34%
• Congressional Republicans- 32%
• Trump- 21%

We reached out to some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates to see how they're handling the issue in their campaigns. All of them are in sync with what Pramila Jayapal and Carol Shea-Porter were telling their constituents:

• DuWayne Gregory (Long Island):

"The Republicans have proven again that they cannot handle the mandate to govern.  They continue to kick the can down the road while poor children go without healthcare and dreamers live in fear of deportation. America needs leadership now."

• Jenny Marshall (northwest North Carolina):

"When will we stop kicking the can down the road and demand legislation be passed that is sorely needed?  While the bill at least reauthorizes CHIP, the government shutdown is still looming and we did not address the fix needed for Dreamers. The Republicans needed the Democrats and those who voted yes took the crumbs brushed off the bargaining table while leaving the meal untouched.  They should have demanded the legislation needed to protect and serve the people who live in this country. They failed."

• David Gill (central Illinois):

"I think that passing continuing resolutions instead of actual budgets is an irresponsible way to govern. And I could never sign on to a deal which treats young people who came here as children in such a heartless manner. The resolution passed today still leaves hundreds of thousands of dreamers in jeopardy.“

• Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (Albuquerque):

"Supporting the short term funding fix without addressing the fate of DREAMERS is cruel to the 800,000 young people whose lives have been disrupted by Trump's racist and irrational decision to revoke DACA. Pitting health care for children (CHIP) against security for innocent young DREAMERS (DACA) was a Republican tactic designed to divide Democrats with a 'Sophie's Choice' and give Republicans an illusory way to try to attack Democrats for their vote. The Democrats who fell for this cynical and cruel tactic are the type of politicians that make all politicians look bad. They betrayed Democratic values of compassion and inclusion., I would not fall for this cynical Republican tactic. Republicans own this dysfunctional failure to perform the most basic function of Congress--to fund our government."

• Austin Frerick (southwest Iowa):

"We are not going to allow 800,000 young Dreamers to be deported. That is what this conservation is about and a short term fix doesn't address this uncertainty for these Dreamers. When Republicans control the Senate, House and White House, and they blame Democrats for the shutdown, I don't think anybody is going to take that seriously. Shame on any Democrat for joining them."

• Tom Guild (Oklahoma City):

This is no way to run a railroad, much less a country. Congress has not passed a budget for this year, despite an October 1, 2017 deadline for passing the current fiscal year’s budget. Trump’s lackeys in Congress continue to parrot and vote the party line. Chateaubriand and Fancy French Champagne all around at Mara Lago, even if the government shuts down! Trump & his acolytes fiddle as America burns! What a self-absorbed group of elected officials incapable of empathy. Millions of Americans will be affected & hurt by a government shutdown. Hundreds of thousands of DREAMERS cruelly twist in the wind. We have a self-absorbed president and a compliant Republican congressional majority that allows Trump’s ego and their votes to not even do the bare minimum to keep the lights on & the government functioning. How tragic that a proud country's government has come to this! The Needle & the Damage Done! If the government shuts down it will be their doing. They'll try to blame it on everyone in sight. They are severely challenged in the areas of leadership & taking responsibility for their malpractice and inadequate actions."

Does Net Neutrality Mean Much To You?

If more congressional candidates did this, many of the country's problems would vanish

I was listening to NPR yesterday on a long drive and they were interviewing two dullard Beltway operatives, a dumb Dem and an even dumber Republican. The dumb Dem, when asked about Net Neutrality's salience as an issue said no one cared much about it. And the dumber Republican went one further to say no one even knows what it is. These two fools and the idiots they work for may be in for a big surprise. Spectrum seems to already be slowing down website loading and is running frequent TV cable ads hawking speedier service if you pay a monthly fee. Anyone who thinks there's no salience in that as an issue is just so, so clueless.

Lisa Brown, the Democrat running for Congress in eastern Washington state, has a a net neutrality video as her pinned tweet. It's an important issue for her. She told us that her opponent, "4th- ranked Republican leader, Rep. McMorris Rodgers, actually 'applauded' the FCC for taking on the reversal of net neutrality, demonstrating how out of touch she is with the real needs of most Americans, especially the rural parts of eastern Washington. Not only will 'pay to play' internet hurt all consumers in the wallet, it will widen the digital divide, as ISPs compete by investing in big city technology upgrades and marketing, letting the rest of us languish."

John Culberson is one of the only members of Congress left in office who voted against the Martin Luther King holiday. Hopefully this will be his last year in Congress, replaced one of the best successful cancer doctores and researcher Jason Westin. Unlike Culberson, Westin is a proponent of new neutrality. " John Culberson has many flaws, but the gift of gab isn't one. The quote often attributed to Mark Twain may apply to Mr. Culberson: 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.' On Net Neutrality, he couldn't stay silent. On March 25, 2017 Culberson held his most recent town hall. It was a raucous affair and one of the questions was about if he'd support Net Neutrality. He tried 4 times to answer, and it was clear he'd never heard of Net Neutrality. But when I reviewed his voting record, he voted AGAINST Net Neutrality on April 15, 2016 (H.R. 2666, 114th Congress). This is an excellent example of why we need new leadership-- to have representatives who actually know what they are voting on."

Senate Democrats seem to understand how much net neutrality resonates and they're trying to force McConnell to allow a vote. Cecilia Kang reported yesterday in the NY Times that even if the Democrats win in the Senate-- and they're close-- the Republican-controlled House is unlikely to go along and Trump would veto it anyway.

Senate Democrats said on Tuesday that all 49 members of their caucus had agreed to sign on to a resolution that would overturn the F.C.C. repeal of net neutrality rules. They are using a tool of the Senate, the Congressional Review Act, which requires a simple majority to overturn a recent order by a federal agency.

The Democrats also have the support of at least one Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine. So that leaves them searching for one more Republican to join their effort to get the necessary 51 votes.

...Many Democrats would like to turn net neutrality into a bigger political issue ahead of the 2018 midterms. The efforts to overturn the F.C.C. order are aimed to raise awareness about an issue that has broad interest, particularly among younger voters, Democratic lawmakers have said. Consumer advocacy groups like Free Press, Demand Progress and Fight for the Future, have been singling out lawmakers who have either supported the F.C.C. order or have not spoken up in favor of restoring rules.

“There will be a political price to pay for those on the wrong side of history. Momentum is on our side,” Mr. Markey has said.

Ryan, of course, will protect the swamp so it will take 218 signatures on a discharge petition to get around him. Mike Doyle (D-PA) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to reverse the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality protections and immediately got 81 co-sponsors. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was one. "We can’t stand by," she said, "as the FCC and big corporations steal our right to equal access to the Internet. I am cosponsoring this resolution because we need to reverse the FCC’s shameful repeal of net neutrality protections. The FCC’s decision will allow Internet service providers to favor big businesses over startups, hurting New Hampshire innovators; it needs to be stopped.”

Last month, Shea-Porter sent a letter with the New Hampshire congressional delegation to New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald and Governor Chris Sununu, urging them to take action to protect Granite State consumers and small businesses from the negative impacts of the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality protections. Shea-Porter and 118 colleagues also sent a letter asking FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to delay the scheduled net neutrality vote due to public comment irregularities.

Yesterday New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman led 22 states in a suit against the FCC over its plan to rollback net neutrality, alleging that the FCC decision violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act as well as a number of state and local laws. And it isn't just the blue states. Kentucky joined as well. Attorney General Andy Beshear: "I’m opposing the repeal of net neutrality because of the destructive nature it will have on every Kentuckian from farmers to college students who use free and open internet to thrive and prosper. As a state and as a nation, we cannot turn our backs on the hard working people of this country by letting the federal government walk all over them and take away their level playing field."

Aside from New York and Kentucky, the other states who have joined the suit are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Democrats would love to get Republicans opposing net neutrality on the record.

I reached out to Austin Frerick, a former Obama Treasury Department economist who is biding much of his Iowa congressional campaign on an analysis of corporate power and how it harms ordinary working families and how to rein it in. He told me that "Only 50% of rural Americans have Internet that meets the government standard of adequate serviced compared with 94% in urban area. The repeal of Net Neutrality will exacerbate the issue of unreliable broadband in rural areas. On March 31st last year, David Young received a $5,000 check from Comcast. I support Net Neutrality. He doesn't. This is probably why. Here's just another example of David Young putting corporate America's needs heads of everyday Iowans."

Derrick Crowe, like Frerick, is one of those forward-looking big thinker candidates-- he's running in TX-21 (super-literate and techie Austin/San Antonio)-- who understands very well how crucially important net neutrality is. Today he told us that "Net Neutrality is about stopping another massive corporate attack on our freedom. It's repeal lets huge corporations act as the gatekeepers of information, giving them enormous power to shape political debates and extort funds from subscribers. This is an issue that young voters and people about to be old enough to vote are intensely attuned to, and if our party doesn't vociferously defend true Title II Net Neutrality, we risk alienating an entire generation-- for good reason. We subsidize corporations like Verizon and Comcast to the tune of billions of dollars each year, and this move by them and their political enablers to restrict our freedoms in return is outrageous." You can contribute to their campaigns, and Jared Golden's, by clicking on the thermometer on the right.

Lewiston's Jared Golden is the majority whip of the Maine House of Representatives and is now running for the congressional seat held by Wall Street-oriented Republican Bruce Poliquin. Like Frerick and Crowe, he gets how important this issue is for Mainers-- even if his opponent doesn't. "Once again," he told us, "Bruce Poliquin is the only member of Maine’s delegation that’s failed to protect his constituents. Senators Susan Collins and Angus King and Congresswoman Pingree all support restoring Net Neutrality but Poliquin supported getting rid of it. The network companies have local monopolies in Maine and they are making their own rules while consumers have little or no alternatives to choose from. The FCC is giving these monopolies free rein over consumers and small businesses and Maine’s economy is pretty much driven by small businesses. Not only should it bring back Net Neutrality but Congress should act to break up the monopolies and ensure fair competition instead of allowing these internet providers to operate like 21st Century Barons."

Katie Hill is the committed progressive in a race to replace GOP reactionary Steve Knight in a district that has been trending blue. She told us that "Without net neutrality, news is less available, citizens are less knowledgeable, and marginalized groups are even less powerful. Our discussions and democratic deliberations are weakened when telecom companies and internet service providers get to decide who is allowed to speak, whose speech will be taken seriously, and what issues are considered debatable. The free and open exchange of information is one of our last defenses against the political influence of big businesses and special interests; the fight to #SaveNetNeutrality is not one that we can afford to lose."

Ajit Pi Alone Can't Kill Net Neutrality-- It Takes A Village... A Corrupt Conservative Village

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you
Wu wu wu
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson
Jolting Joe has left and gone away
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey

Actually it's Lyin' Ryan who's gone away... or, at least, going away. And he's leaving behind the mess over net neutrality. "Oh, but it isn't Ryan's mess," you claim. It;'s just that horrid, slimeball lobbyist Ajit Pai. Pai, a former" Verizon lobbyist, was just doing his job, clearly for his "former" employer. It's Ryan who isn't doing his job, if you consider the people in southeast Wisconsin his employer. We'll get to that in a second. First a little update from Tom McKay at Gizmodo.

On Thursday, the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission and its chairman, Verizon BFF Ajit Pai, will hold a vote on whether to repeal Barack Obama-era net neutrality rules. If passed, the FCC would allow ISPs to begin setting up a tiered internet designed to suck as much money from customers’ pockets as possible while screwing with their ability to access competitors’ content, or really anything that might suck up amounts of bandwidth inconvenient for their profit margins.

The plan is immensely unpopular, even with Republicans. This type of situation would typically call for a charm offensive, though Pai has apparently decided to resort to his time-honored tactic of being incredibly condescending instead. In a video with the conservative site Daily Caller’s Benny Johnson [above]-- the dude who got fired from BuzzFeed for plagiarizing Yahoo Answers-- Pai urged the country to understand that even if he succeeds in his plan to let ISPs strangle the rest of the internet to death, they’ll let us continue to take selfies and other stupid bullshit.

...All of these claims on what users “will still be able to do” are actually questionable, seeing as under Pai’s plan, ISPs could easily hit up their customers with crushing fees to let them access any of these services at reasonable speeds-- particularly those binge-watching streaming services he claims to love so much. Strangely, Pai didn’t mention torrenting, one of the applications of the internet he believes ISPs should be able to turn off entirely to save on bandwidth.

The debate over net neutrality isn’t whether people are literally going to be unable to upload photos of cute puppies to the internet, but whether they’re going to be able to do so on fair terms or arcane, extortionate ones dictated entirely by a handful of ultra-wealthy service providers. But that’s beside the point; just like with a previous video mocking Twitter critics he filmed with the right-wing site Independent Journal Review, the intent seems to be finding friendly last-minute venues for Pai to publicly laugh off the intense criticism being directed at his plan.

He’s trying to buy precious cover by painting everyone who disagrees with him as a simple-minded idiot.

Beto O'Rourke, an ardent defender of net neutrality, is running for the Texas Senate seat held by the odious Ted Cruz, a fanatic anti-neutrality backer. He's been working on a bill and so has Sean Patrick Maloney. But no one is deluded into thinking Ryan-- who has taken oodles of cash from the telecomms; this cycle $59,195, more than anyone else in Congress other than Greg Walden (R-OR), chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology ($105,100).



Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), everyone's favorite congresswoman, also emphasized that "this fight is not over with today’s vote. In Congress, I am an original co-sponsor, with Rep. Mike Doyle, of the Congressional Review Act that will reverse the FCC’s terrible vote. It is a top priority for me to do everything I can, working with people across the country, to protect net neutrality and preserve an open internet for all."

Another member of Congress told me he called for a constitutional amendment on net neutrality 7 years ago! He said the "most likely reason why nothing has passed is that the phone companies and cable companies would try to jam up any effort like that, and the internet companies aren’t strong enough on K Street to neutralize their effort.  AT&T, for instance, has the single largest federal PAC in DC, if I recall correctly. So the New Dems stop it in the House, and the Schumer Dems in the Senate." Hawaii's progressive champion, Kaniela Ing came up with a very interesting solution he tweeted last night. What do you think of this?

Carol Shea-Porter, the progressive congresswoman from New Hampshire, told her constituents that the fight isn't over as far as she's concerned. "I strongly oppose the result of today’s shameful FCC vote, and I will work to restore the net neutrality protections American consumers expect and deserve. Net neutrality is the simple principle that lawful content on the Internet should be equally accessible to everyone, and that Internet service providers should not be allowed to discriminate against some content providers. Without the guarantee of net neutrality, the Internet superhighway’s rules of the road will favor big businesses over newer startups. The Internet has allowed the proud tradition of American ingenuity and entrepreneurship to reach every corner of the globe. Its openness has enabled a new generation of New Hampshire innovators to turn a bright idea and a laptop into a business. We can’t stand by as the FCC and big corporations steal our right to equal access."

Almost all the Blue America-endorsed candidates sent out e-mails today campaigning on net neutrality. Wise. Sam Jammal (CA-39): "Ajit Pai and the FCC just voted to ignore the overwhelming majority of Americans who begged to save net neutrality. Too much of our economy is reliant on a free and open internet for us to stand back and do nothing... It's time to elect a Congressman who refuses to sell out his community." Derrick Crowe is our candidate in the Austin-San Antonio corridor (TX21): "The internet is ours-- the people's. But, the FCC sided with corporate America and voted to kill the open Internet. Send me to Congress and I will fight to pass strong legislation that will undo this terrible decision. This is what Donald Trump's appointees are here to do: sell us out to corporate America. The best way to fight back now is to take back Congress, and to put representatives in place who will force an open Internet policy on the FCC. I am refusing corporate-PAC money because you need to know whose side I am on." Katie Hill, up in the Santa Clarita Valley, got it perfectly: "Today, the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality, ignoring the millions of us who stood up in support of it. They allowed a handful of billionaires and corporations to control our access to information. Now, the best way for us to stand up and fight back is right here in the 25th district. Steve Knight has taken $60,000 from telecom companies, and has stayed completely silent on net neutrality. These telecom companies are emboldened by politicians like Knight, and they won't be stopped until there are leaders in place who can't be bought by special interests."

Get To Know Concealed Carry Reciprocity-- Paul Ryan Just Rammed It Through Congress

Ready for more gun mayhem-- even if you live in a state with rational gun laws? Yesterday afternoon, Congress took a procedural vote providing for consideration of H.R. 38, Richard Hudson's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which happens to be the NRA's #1 priority for the current session of Congress. The procedural motion passed 232-194, four Blue Dogs crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans: Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN), Vicente Gonzalez (TX) and Sanford Bishop (GA). The underlying bill itself has three Democratic cosponsors: Cuellar, Peterson and Bishop. There were 10 Republican NO votes, all kooks and nuts like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan and Steve King who didn't feel the bill went far enough. A few hours later the bill itself passed 231-198 with fully 6 NRA-lovin' Democrats on board:

• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)

It's worth mentioning-- for the umpteenth time-- that if the DCCC gets its way, 2019 will see many more NRA-supporting Democrats in Congress. Ben Ray Lujan and Nancy Pelosi have freely and publicly admitted that the DCCC is now working with the Blue Dog Caucus to recruit more Blue Dogs into Congress. I spoke to one of them a few months ago, Andrew Janz, and, after saying he doesn't know what "single payer" is and professing to have never heard of the phrase "Medicare For All," he offered to tell me what is motivating his run for the Central Valley district seat held by Devin Nunes. I was stunned when he told me-- unprompted-- that there are two over-arching reasons he's running-- to protect the 2nd Amendment and to make sure the death penalty is more widely used. Ah, yes, another DCCC-type fake Democrat, taking a firm stand against the energy that is propelling a Democratic take-over of Congress.

The L.A. Times editorial yesterday, No matter how they dress it up, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is really bad policy, was a warning that wasn't needed by L.A. area Democrats and was ignored by all the L.A. area Republicans (like Ed Royce, Steve Knight, Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher and Darrell Issa). The Times editors noted that the bill is "a spectacularly stupid and dangerous piece of legislation intended to undercut the right of states to determine what qualifications a person must meet before being allowed to carry a concealed firearm."

Under the proposed reciprocity law, anyone with a valid permit from another state would be able to carry a concealed firearm in California, even if they do not meet California’s more stringent standards. This is a highly objectionable infringement on the responsibilities of state and local law enforcement to maintain public safety, and is clearly aimed at undermining gun control efforts nationally. What’s more, it will put guns into the hands of more people who shouldn’t have them.

Gabby Giffords' gun control organization released some radio and TV ads in a few swingy GOP districts urging voters to contact their members of Congress and urge them vote NO. It's just a partisan election ad, not one meant to change any votes. This is the radio ad and here's the TV ad, These are the targeted congressmembers:

• Jason Lewis, MN-02
• Rodney Frelinghuysen, NJ-11
• Steve Knight, CA-25
• Ed Royce, CA-39
• Mimi Walters, CA-45
• Mike Coffman, CO-06
• Lee Zeldin, NY-01
• Barbara Comstock, VA-10

The irony here isn't the Giffords was an Arizona Blue Dog who supported the NRA before she was shot but that she recently backed another NRA-supporting gun nut, Ann Kirkpatrick, who's running against several normal gun control-supporting Democrats in Giffords' own old Tucson-area district. I guess that helps explain why Giffords' ad didn't run in any of the Democratic districts with NRA congressmen or candidates. Here's how Kirkpatrick talks about the NRA and their agenda. Keep in mind when you read these quotes, that Kirkpatrick, who isn't even from anywhere near this district, is being relentlessly pushed not just by Giffords but by the DCCC and the New Dems as well.

"I am not going to allow Washington to ignore the values of Arizonans and the traditions of four generations of my family in District One, and I am proud to be pushing back against the federal government to stop our Constitutional rights from being infringed. Every time the anti-gun rights groups propose legislation that restricts our freedoms, I am going to make sure they know millions of Americans will fight them every inch of the way." [Congressional Documents and Publications. May 13, 2010. "Rep. Kirkpatrick Updates Greater Arizonans on Her Fight to Defend Second Amendment Rights in Tele-Town Hall."]

Kirkpatrick welcomed the NRA to Phoenix for its annual convention, calling it "one of the country’s oldest continuously operating civil liberties organizations" in a press release.

"As a gun owner myself, I firmly believe in the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and I am proud that my state is hosting the group that has protected that right for 138 years. This is a chance for Arizonans to show our nation’s leaders we will not let them take away our freedoms."

"People in Washington need to stop undermining the Second Amendment. That’s why I took on the Attorney General for his proposal to ban so-called 'assault weapons.' I will continue to work vigilantly to maintain and protect our Second Amendment rights against every challenge they face."  [States News Service. July 22, 2009. "Rep Kirkpatrick Reaffirms Support for Critical Second Amendment Protections, Continues 'Defending Arizona Values' Campaign."]

Kirkpatrick was a co-sponsor for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act which allows those authorized to carry firearms in their home state to travel with their weapons. [Congressional Documents and Publications. November 20, 2009. "Rep. Kirkpatrick Emphasizes Importance of Protecting Second Amendment Rights to Greater Arizonans in Tele-Town Hall."]

Kirkpatrick agreed with a radio caller in 2010 that citizens should be able to buy and own fully automatic firearms. "I agree with you, I think people should be able to legally purchase and carry the gun they want." She also stated that she opposed bans on some types of firearms, opposed DC and Chicago laws barring private ownership of some gun types, and supported allowing guns in national parks.[Arizona Daily Sun. January 10, 013. “Kirkpatrick pivots on guns.”]

Kirkpatrick did not support President Obama’s call to reinstitute the assault weapons ban and limit magazine size. [Eastern Arizona Courier (Safford, Arizona). February 5, 2013. “Kirkpatrick talks guns, jobs, water.”]

Kirkpatrick continued her opposition to limiting extended magazines.

Kirkpatrick was the only Congressional Democrat in Arizona to receive an "A" rating from the NRA in the last decade which she maintained through Fall 2012. [The Arizona Republic April 5, 2013. Final Chaser Edition. "Arizona’s Gun Divide."]

Not that I'm saying Giffords' organization is completely useless, quite the contrary. Despite her shocking and hypocritical endorsement of Kirkpatrick, which would have added another Democratic vote to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity win for the NRA today, Resist the Gun Lobby debunked 7 myths perpetrated by the NRA and their allies (like Kirkpatrick):

MYTH 1: Concealed carry reciprocity will make it easy for people to travel with their permits nationwide, similar to how driver’s licenses work.

MYTH BUSTED!

Unlike concealed carry permits, driver’s licenses are standard, verifiable documents that meet almost the same criteria in every state. In fact, in order to be recognized by federal agencies, driver’s licenses must meet federal criteria established by the REAL ID Act that contain physical security features including a photo of its holder and uniform data such as identity, date of birth, principal residence address, etc.

Concealed carry permits, on the other hand, do not contain uniform information or standard security features. Permits’ appearances vary significantly among states: some states issue permits that resemble paper library cards, while others issue permits that lack photo identification. In order to verify the authenticity and validity of a permit, law enforcement would have to contact the issuing agency in the permit holder’s state because no national database--  and sometimes no statewide database-- containing concealed carry permit information exists.

Furthermore, to obtain a driver’s license, people must also undergo several forms of testing--  including a vision exam, exams that test knowledge of driving and relevant laws, and an in-person driving test. Underage applicants in most states must also fulfill practice hours or complete driver’s education classes. Training to obtain a concealed carry permit, however, varies widely throughout the states. A number of states require classroom instruction and live-fire training to obtain a permit to carry concealed. In 19 states, however, individuals do not need to undergo any training to carry concealed. In 12 states, individuals do not even need a permit-- no less any training-- to carry concealed, loaded firearms in public.

If concealed carry reciprocity becomes law, untrained individuals could carry concealed, loaded firearms nationwide. The lack of identifying data and divergent information on concealed carry permits would present a serious challenge for a law enforcement officers seeking to determine if an individual is lawfully carrying a concealed gun. This would create a lengthy, complicated process that would take law enforcement away from critical policing duties. In many cases, law enforcement could lack the ability to verify if concealed carry permits are forged or stolen, allowing guns to fall into dangerous hands.

MYTH 2: People with concealed carry permits are law-abiding and highly trained.

MYTH BUSTED!

While many states require concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate that they have received firearm safety training, the gun lobby has worked aggressively in state capitols to weaken or eliminate training requirements for permit holders.

The most drastic example of the erosion of state standards is the proliferation of “permitless” carry states. In 2011, the last time the U.S. House of Representatives took up a concealed carry reciprocity proposal, three states did not require a permit to carry concealed. In 2013, the last time the U.S. Senate voted on this proposal, four states did not require a permit to carry concealed. Today, 12 states do not require a permit or any training to carry a concealed, loaded handgun in public and 19 additional states do not require any training to obtain a permit. Law enforcement in the 12 “permitless” carry states have no way to know who is carrying concealed guns, let alone if these are trained or law-abiding individuals.

Additionally, many states poorly manage their concealed carry permitting systems. Dangerous flaws in permitting systems in North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado, and other states have allowed individuals disqualified by criminal convictions, including convicted felons and individuals with outstanding arrest warrants, to nevertheless maintain concealed carry permits. Many of these permit holders go on to commit further crimes.

MYTH 3: Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.

MYTH BUSTED!

There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some types of crime, such as assault. One recent study found that states that award concealed carry permits to anyone who meets minimum standards experience 13 to 15 percent more violent crime than states with stronger laws. Overall, research confirms the commonsense conclusion that more guns create more opportunities for injury and death, not fewer.

Claims that firearms are used defensively millions time every year have also been widely discredited. Even when a firearm is used in self-defense, which is rare, research shows that a firearm is no more likely to reduce a person’s chance of being injured during a crime than other various forms of protection. One study suggests that carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim’s risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime.

Few Americans believe the U.S. would be safer if more people carried guns. Just 35 percent of voters surveyed by a June 2017 Quinnipiac Poll believe that the country would be a safer place to live if more people carried guns.

MYTH 4: Concealed carry permit holders who are lawfully able to carry in their state are often considered “accidental criminals” just because they are traveling to another state with a concealed firearm.

MYTH BUSTED!

Currently, each state decides whether it will recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. Through reciprocity agreements, states ensure that permit holders from one state can travel to another state with a loaded, concealed firearm without endangering public safety. Concealed carry permit holders can easily check to determine whether their permits are recognized in other states, as states make this information directly available online. Furthermore, if a permit holder wants to travel with a gun through a state that does not recognize his or her permit, the permit holder only needs to properly lock the gun in the trunk of the car-- federal law already guarantees the permit holder that authority.

Concealed carry reciprocity would not create a national permitting standard. Instead it would require states to accept all permits and permissions to carry from all other states even if they don’t meet the requirements in that state. The wide array of state laws would remain intact and concealed carry reciprocity would only reinforce the confusing patchwork of state laws that currently exists.

MYTH 5: Concealed carry reciprocity would NOT override existing state and local gun laws governing where people can carry.

MYTH BUSTED!

The House version of concealed carry reciprocity would override a host of state and local laws that currently prohibit permit holders from carrying guns in places like bars, daycare centers, places of worship, athletic events, and near polling places. These laws allow private property owners to prohibit guns on their property, and enable law enforcement to anticipate where they are most and least likely to encounter armed individuals. For example:

• In Florida and many other states, a concealed handgun license doesn’t authorize the license holder to carry a concealed handgun into a bar.
• Administrative regulations in Indiana prohibit the carrying of guns in certain casinos and childcare centers.
• Louisiana prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns in churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, unless special requirements are met.

These kinds of laws are common across the country, and law enforcement, private property owners, and the public rely on them. Concealed carry reciprocity would override these laws, allowing guns in spaces most people assume are gun-free.

MYTH 6: Concealed carry reciprocity doesn’t make it any easier to buy a gun.

MYTH BUSTED!

Gun traffickers frequently cross state lines to obtain guns from states with the weakest laws. Concealed carry reciprocity would make it easier for them to do that. It would tie the hands of law enforcement officers who encounter armed, out-of-state residents, who may be trafficking guns.

Under the House version of concealed carry reciprocity, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, a law enforcement officer who pulls over a person with a permit could face a lawsuit for questioning the person. An unscrupulous concealed carry permit holder would be able to gather large number of guns in states with weak gun laws, and then cross state lines unencumbered by questioning at traffic stops. Those guns would then be available in the criminal market, making us all less safe.

MYTH 7: Law enforcement officers support concealed carry reciprocity.

MYTH BUSTED!

Major law enforcement groups, including Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and Police Executive Research Forum, oppose concealed carry legislation. The House version of concealed carry reciprocity goes a step beyond the Senate version and exposes law enforcement to personal litigation if officers mistakenly question a person’s legal authority to possess a firearm. As a result, officers would fear conducting thorough investigations and would be deterred from effectively doing their jobs.

In a letter urging Congress to oppose the House bill, 9 national law enforcement organizations, including the groups referenced above, state that “The lack of consistent and in many cases the absence of training standards coupled with the exposure of agencies and police officers to tort claims present an unacceptable risk to the public, specifically our law enforcement personnel. We reject the idea that one state’s approach to carrying a concealed firearm will work across every state, city or community. States and localities should have the right to legislate concealed carry.”

Carol Shea-Porter explained her vote against this yesterday to her New Hampshire constituents. "Today I voted against the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act because it would undermine states’ rights and would expose law enforcement officers to lawsuits and an increased risk of harm. That’s why leading law enforcement organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Police Executive Research Forum, are opposing this bill. Moreover, at a time when the majority of Americans want Congress to work on bipartisan solutions that address the national epidemic of gun violence, passing the NRA’s top legislative priority to loosen gun safety laws takes us in the wrong direction."