Have You Ever Been To Canada? It's A Nice Country

COVID-palooza by Chip Proser

Yesterday I referenced Señor Trumpanzee farting out, during his daily barrage of misinformation and manipulative lies, that "Our death totals, our numbers, per million people, are really very, very strong. We’re very proud of the job we’ve done." As I pointed out the U.S. death totals per million are anything but "really very, very strong." They're really very, very mediocre and lag badly behind many other countries, including the most American-like of countries, Canada.

Yesterday, U.S. deaths came in at 197 per million. Canada's was a far more reasonable 90 per million. Yesterday, Canada reported 54,784 total cases and 3,387 deaths. Our neighbors to the north have 1,452 cases per million. That isn't great but the states that have been most steepening the curve are in worse shape than Canada's 1,452 cases per million:

• South Dakota- 2,921 per million
• Indiana- 2,807 per million
• Georgia- 2,656 per million
• Mississippi- 2,413 per million
• Nebraska- 2,248 per million
• Tennessee- 1,788 per million
• Florida- 1,686 per million
• Utah- 1,585 per million
• North Dakota- 1,472 per million

These are also states with Trumpist governors opening up too rapidly and too early and likely to cause big jumps in reinfection rates, not just in their own states, but subsequently everywhere. And big reinfection rates always mean that a month later there are jumps in the death rates too. Congratulations, Kristi Noem, Brian Kemp and Ron DeSantis... you're killing off your state's citizens. And-- no coincidence-- these are also states that would rather take advise from the NRA than from public health experts.

While Trump was encouraging the right-wing vigilante terrorists bringing assault weapons to rallies protesting social distancing rules, Trudeau announced that his government is banning 1,500 types of military grade assault weapons.

Starting today, licensed gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sorts of weapons in this country.

"As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed," Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said. "Enough is enough. Banning these firearms will save Canadian lives."

Trudeau said there will be a two-year amnesty period to allow people who already own these firearms to comply with the ban. Trudeau promised to pass legislation in the coming months to provide "fair compensation" to people who own these firearms.

..."These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."

Trump, on the other hand... back to describing terrorists as "very good people."

Rev. John Pavlovitz devoted his blog yesterday to discussing The White Privilege to Terrorize, something many people thought of when they saw Trump encouraging them (again). "As a white man watching the Michigan protests of Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home orders," he wrote, all I could think was: 

• Black people don’t get to do this.
• Muslims don’t get to do this.
• Latinos don’t get to do this.
• People who don’t look like this don’t get to do this.

Pavlovitz noted that non-whites "don’t get to swarm American capitol buildings in tactical gear with high-powered weapons, screaming in close proximity to police officers. They don’t get to dress up like Call of Duty cosplayers and attempt to physically intimidate politicians into bending to their wills. They don’t get to get to stop traffic in city streets decked out like they work at the Death Star and brazenly wield semi-automatic rifles. They don’t get to terrorize decent people and walk away. Only white people get to do this. This violence is a singular privilege afforded to caucasian men in America."

12 year old black boys playing with a toy gun in a park are shot down by the police who are then exonerated.

Black people don’t get to to wear menacing masks or flash handguns on courthouse steps or accost strangers looking like dollar store stormtroopers, in an attempt to frighten people.

They frighten jittery white people by simply existing in their blackness.
They frighten them by lingering in coffee shops.
They frighten them by eating lunch in their cars.
They frighten them by standing in front of their own homes.

...It’s no coincidence that in the middle of the fight to oppose stay-at-home protections by Blue governors choosing humanity over commerce, Trump tweeted out seeming non sequitur invocations to LIBERATE several cities and warned of second amendment encroachment. Though on their surface the subjects seemed unrelated to stopping the spread of the virus, these tweets were clear dog whistles for his snarling white base to suit up, strap on weapons, and provide the free muscle in his reckless push to reopen American in the throes of a pandemic, knowing they’d never be held accountable.

This is MAGA America in its dawning renaissance of outward racism, showing us what is at stake as we approach another election. We aren’t just choosing a president or party to steward us through the coming years, we’re making a statement on what we will and will not tolerate as a people.

What we witnessed in Michigan was an act of terrorism, by the very definition of the word. We have seen many such acts this week, and if November allows this malevolence another four years, they will seem tame. The self-appointed soldiers in the army of the lord will grow more brazen and become more violent in their holy war to make America whiter-- so decent white people need to resist them in the streets, on social media, and at the polls.

I fully suspect people of color will oppose this presidency in large numbers, because they see the disparity.

What I hope and pray, is that more white people, especially those who claim to be Christian, will also stand to reject the supremacy and racism that yields such willful homegrown terrorism; that we will use the unearned currency of our privilege to declare this violence un-American and inhuman and unacceptable.

White terrorists can no longer have a friend in the White House-- not if we really want to make America great.

Write your own caption without mentioning man-boobs

The Difference Between Bernie And Elizabeth And The Rest Of The Field-- Bernie And Elizabeth Aren't Full Of Crap

Beto has lost a lot of momentum since he decided to run for president instead of taking on John Cornyn for the Texas Senate seat. Even some guy named Andrew Yang is polling better than he is. When Beto joined the presidential race, his fresh face gave him a startling 8.5 in the polls. Since then, though, Domocrats have reconsidered and his average polling number is now 2.8, seventh. The most recent credible poll, by YouGov for The Economist last week, has him at a dismal 1.0.

Brilliant! And Beto has been trying to walk it back ever since

Sometimes Beto wants to get some traction with progressives so screams "fuck" or he stakes out a position to the left of everyone else and then argues for it passionately-- like he did with assault weapons at Thursday's debate, going way beyond what any other Democrat is calling for. "We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore," he asserted, arguing for mandatory confiscation, an ultra unpopular position at this point. "If the high-impact, high-velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body, because it was designed to do that, so you would bleed to death on a battlefield. Not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers... When we see that being used against children. And in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15. And that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour, because so many other people were shot by an AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell yes. We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore."

Right now David Cicilline's assault weapons sales ban-- not confiscation-- bill, HR 1296 is being kept from being voted on by... not by Trump, not by MoscowMitch... by Pelosi. There are 211 co-sponsors, 210 Democrats and one Republican. Only 25 House Democrats, led by walking garbage dump and DCCC chair Cheri Bustos, have refused to co-sponsor the bill. Beto's self-serving grandstanding isn't helping; it's hurting the cause. Since the spate of NRA-GOP massacres this summer, some of the conservative Blue Dogs and New Dems-- Beto's compatriots when he was a New Dem member of Congress-- have reluctantly signed on as cosponsors to a bill they shunned when Cicilline introduced it last February 15. Of the 20 converts who co-sponsored since the deadly mass shootings began, one is a Republican (Peter King) and 14 are from Beto's New Dems Caucus.

New Dems-- like Beto-- the House's yellow-bellied cowards. Beto wasn't a progressive when he was in Congress, not on much of anything. Occasionally he sounded a little like one. After all, he represented a solid blue district that was clearly to the left of himself. Trump only scored a puny 27.2% there and the PVI is D+17. Beto did nothing in Congress-- nothing good, nothing bad... nothing. It was a waste of a good seat. And I don't mean to single out or pick on Beto (who I like). But most of these presidential would-be candidates don't do crap, or, worse, did actual bad while they had the chance.




Biden, of course, was worst of all-- a complete villain for his entire career, the definition of a DINO from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, a war-monger, a vicious racist and the very worst kind of corporate whore you'll ever find. Kamala's résumé is so thin as to be nearly non-existent and what there is of it is mostly puke-worthy, illustrating how assiduously she worked to assure wealthy liberal and moderate campaign fonors that just because her skin was a little darker than theirs it didn't mean she leaned left on anything. She was my attorney general and my senator and I never cast a vote for her in a primary or a general election. She may not be as bad as Biden but that's because he's had more time to do more evil.





Compare the rest of the schlubs who were on the stage Thursday night to Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. What Bernie and Elizabeth talk about in their platforms and on the debate stage is what they've spent their entire political careers working on. That's what makes them different from Beto and Biden and Kamala who are just trying to curry favor with voters as though there were no yesterdays. While Biden and Kamala were locking African-Americans away in prisons and Beto was eating lunch with the New Dems-- it's what he told me he did with them-- Bernie spent his life pushing exactly what he talks about with the voters today: Medicare-for-All (aka, original Medicare before conservatives whittled it down, between 1905 and 1965, to what it is today), human rights, peace, environmental justice, workers rights, women's rights... 

Take his newest announced policy position: a national housing policy. Bernie started working on that-- successfully-- in the 1980s when he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont (and when Beto was a member of the Cult of the Dead Cow-- a computer hacking collective that stole long-distance phone service-- and listening to Hawkwind and writing poetry based on their songs). Not even a dedicated Bernie-hater like NY Times slime ball and twisted Wall Street shill Sydney Ember could make Bernie's plan to end homelessness and nationally limit rent increases sound bad. And even the hateful, vile Ember admitted that Bernie "has long advocated for affordable housing, even during his days as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in the 1980s." Here he was in 2000 on the floor of the House talking about the issue he's bringing to the fore of the presidential campaign today. That's who Bernie is. He shines with integrity and authenticity, especially when you put him next to the sad-sack opportunists like Biden, Mayo Pete, Kamala, Beto...

Only Pelosi-- Not McConnell and Not Trump-- Is Keeping An Assault Weapons Sales Ban From Passing The House

 A plurality of grassroots Democrats prefer AOC to Pelosi as party leader, according the a new poll

Yesterday, commenting on the House Dems' absurd impeachment shit-show being orchestrated by Pelosi and Nadler, a former top Capitol Hill staffer, wrote privately that "This is not just a disaster, but is starting to make me question the baseline, fundamental values of our leaders and THEIR commitment to the rule of law. They think this is about elections and popularity; well it isn’t, it’s about Americans all over asking whether anything in the constitution, the rule of law, or any of this matters at all or if it’s all just window dressing... and you know what, that’s depressing and dangerous. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but at this point I feel like these folks need to PROVE to me that they give one iota of shit about all the lines I’ve been fed about American democracy since the 5th grade."

I agree and there's no reason to not go on to discuss the impeachment shit-show he was commenting on. But Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer already did that-- and very well-- at Politico. So let's apply it to something else festering in Congress: the same game that decrepit old Pelosi and her craven leadership team are playing with assault weapons.

She's got Dave Cicilline's sales ban, H.R. 1296, bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. All but 25 Democrats in the House have signed on as co-sponsors. Pelosi and Cheri Bustos haven't. There's even a Republican co-sponsor. Several Republicans have said they will vote for it if it comes to the House but won't co-sponsor it. Although there are hard core NRA Democrats who will oppose it to their deaths-- like Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), when Pelosi whines that she can't allow it to be brought to the floor until there are 218 co-sponsors, she's being completely disingenuous. In other words, she has absorbed Trumpism's #1 tenet of governance: Lie with alacrity and you'll get away with it.

Here's the math: 210 Democratic co-sponsors + Peter King (the Republican co-sponsor) + Pelosi + Bustos + non-co-sponsors who will vote yes if Pelosi says to-- Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA), Lauren Underwood (D-IL), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AZ), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX) and Andy Kim (D-NJ) + even ONE of the Republicans who will vote for it, say Michael Turner, former mayor of Dayton, whose daughter was nearly shot in the recent GOP/NRA massacre and who publicly said he'd vote for Cicilline's bill, or Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) or Chris Smith (R-NJ) or Fred Upton (R-MI) or Brian Mast (R-FL) would not just take the score to the 218 she says she needs, but to 219 a vote over what she needs.

The background checks bill that passed the House last February, H.R. 8, only had 2 Democratic NO votes (Collin Peterson and Jared Golden) and it had 8 Republicans who voted for it:

• Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
• Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Will Hurd (R-TX)
• Peter King (R-NY)
• Brian Mast (R-FL)
• Chris Smith (R-NJ)
• Fred Upton (R-MI)

John Katko, who represents a blue district centered around Syracuse, New York and sometimes gets away with calling himself a "moderate," was away when the vote was called but he later issued a statement that had he been in DC, he would have voted against the bill.

Jeff Van Drew is an NRA Blue Dog

What's Pelosi's motivation for not whipping the assault weapons sales ban and passing it? NY Times reporter Sheryl Stolberg figured it out. "As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation," she wrote, "they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban."

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats-- 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage-- are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens-- a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups-- making any such ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.

The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.

On the presidential campaign trail, Democrats like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are rallying behind an assault weapons ban, and Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from Texas, has gone so far as to call for a mandatory government program to buy back the weapons of war. But on Capitol Hill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, have barely breathed a word about reviving the ban.

Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban and is one of its most ardent defenders, did not raise the issue when she spoke about gun safety alongside Mr. Schumer on Tuesday afternoon. “We don’t have the votes to pass it,” she later explained. [She was lying, either consciously or because Pelosi fed her a line of bullshit.]

“Let’s be honest,” said Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure, who described himself as a “huge proponent” of the ban. “Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. This is the one piece of legislation that keeps a particular weapon out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. A lot of people have enormous objections to that.”

...The push for background checks instead of an assault weapons ban makes political sense for Democrats, who see it as a winning issue. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found 89 percent of Americans in favor of universal background checks. While a majority also supported an assault weapons ban, the support was much thinner-- just 56 percent.

The 1994 law, which passed as part of a broader crime bill championed by Mr. Biden, then a senator, banned the sale of 19 specific weapons that have the features of guns used by the military, including semiautomatic rifles and certain types of shotguns and handguns.

It also outlawed magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, while allowing people who already had such weapons to keep them. But it had a sunset provision, and Congress refused to renew it when it expired in 2004, in part because Democrats were nervous that it could cost them re-election.

The politics have shifted since then, especially after a summer of deadly mass shootings.

Some Democrats in surprising corners of the country have also embraced a ban, even though the political reality is that Mr. Trump would never sign such a measure.

Two moderate Democrats who beat Republicans for House seats last year-- Representatives Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Jason Crow of Colorado-- spoke out last month in favor of a ban, with an opinion article in USA Today. Both are military veterans, and Mr. Crow ran on an aggressive platform of combating gun violence.

Even some Republicans have signed on to the idea. Among them is Representative Michael R. Turner, Republican of Ohio, whose district includes Dayton, where a gunman killed nine people outside a bar last month. Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida, where a 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland galvanized a youth movement for gun safety, also supports a ban.

But for centrists like Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Kendra Horn of Oklahoma-- both of whom also flipped seats in districts Mr. Trump won-- supporting an assault weapons ban could be politically toxic.

Representative Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Texas, who enjoys the backing of the National Rifle Association and is facing a primary challenge from the left, does not support a ban.

“I am for reasonable gun reform,” Mr. Cuellar said in a recent interview. “But I’m not going to take guns away from people like they want to do.”

The bill does not advocate "taking guns away from people." Cuellar always uses Republican Party/Fox News talking points to frame his reactionary agenda. He's one of the worst scumbags in the Democratic Party and what good is Pelosi if she lets garbage like him-- and worthless coward Kendra Horn-- dictate which votes are allowed on the floor and which votes have to be killed in committee? Democrats should remove Pelosi as Speaker before she does irreparable damage to the party's chances to win in 2020.

Eva Putzova is the progressive Democrat running against an incumbent-- former Republican state legislator Tom O'Halleran, currently pretending to be a semi-Democrat (as a Blue Dog) and, of course, vehemently against banning the sale of assault weapons, something Eva is just as vehemently in favor of. "Who," she asked, "benefits from the assault weapon sales? It’s not the people of this country but corporations who sell them. I can’t imagine being a Representative, seeing reports on mass shootings terrorizing our communities almost daily and doing nothing. Standing on the sideline and refusing to co-sponsor the assault weapons sales is a total failure of leadership."

Republicans Deserve The Blame They Get-- But There Are Still 25 House Dems-- Led By DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos-- Who Refuse To Back An Assault Weapons Ban

Three freshmen members of Congress who no one in their right mind will ever accuse of being courageous are Kim Schier (New Dem-WA), Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA) and Colin Allred (D-TX). Schrier's district is 72.3% suburban, the rest being about equally urban and rural. Luria's is over 95% urban and suburban; just 4.5% rural. And Allred's is 100% urban and suburban-- no rural precincts at all. On Friday Schier, Luria and Allred became the 209th, 210th and 211th members of Congress to sign on as co-sponsors to Dave Cicilline's bill to ban the sale of assault weapons, H.R. 1296. Pelosi has had the bill bottled up in the House Judiciary Committee since February 15. It took 3 more GOP/NRA gun massacres to get cowards like Schier, Luria and Allred to support it. I'm sure they feel like they're heroes now. The bill even had it's first official Republican co-sponsor, Peter King (August 16), before they-- pardon the metaphor, pulled the trigger. In all, 20 members (19 Dems, almost all of them New Dems and Blue Dogs) signed on after the spate of massacres, during the summer recess. Most of them represent suburban districts where support for banning assault weapons is more than just a majority; it's now an issue that will help determine who wins in 2020 and who loses.

Opposition to banning assault weapons still exists with some significance in backward rural areas. Few of the cowards who signed on represent backward rural areas. Better late than never. There are still 25 Democrats refusing to back the bill-- primarily Blue Dogs like top NRA-champions Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), "former" Republican Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), DCCC chair Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Lauren Underwood (IL), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX), Andy Kim (Suicidal-NJ), Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI) and Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM).

A new poll for ABC News and the Washington Post was released yesterday that shows widespread support for gun control, including the assault weapons sales ban. Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin wrote for The Post that "Americans across party and demographic lines overwhelmingly support expanded background checks for gun buyers and allowing law enforcement to temporarily seize weapons from troubled individuals." They wrote that Señor Trumpanzee and Republicans "face fresh pressure to act" but forgot to mention all the Blue Dogs and New Dems still sitting on the fence. Instead they point out that the poll shows that "More Americans say they trust congressional Democrats over Trump to handle the nation’s gun laws, 51 percent to 36 percent, with independents siding with Democrats by a 17-point margin-- a divide that could have political ramifications for the 2020 presidential and congressional elections."

On The Fence by Nancy Ohanian

Trump, the NRA, Blue Dogs and Republicans will no doubt put up a weak and useless background check bill and say "ok, happy now? It won't do any good." And they're right; it won't. The 89% of Americans who support expanding federal background checks include massive majorities of Republicans, of gun owners and even of lunatic fringe white evangelicals. Right now McConnell is the main problem, saying he won't allow the Senate to vote on anything until Trump agrees to back it.

Cicilline: "This is a pattern. They sort of hope time passes and people forget about it. The good news is, the American people are not going to let them forget about it. They’re going to demand that Congress and the Senate do something to reduce gun violence in this country." Sloppily, DeBonis and Guskin reported that "A growing number of Democrats-- and a few Republicans-- have signed on to a Cicilline-authored bill reimposing a version of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Sept. 25 on the bill-- a significant step for Democratic leaders who have long treated an assault weapons ban as too politically risky." They reporters are incorrect about "a few Republicans" signing on to Cicilline's bill. Several have agreed to vote for it on the House floor but only one-- Peter King-- is a co-sponsor. "In a sign of the changing politics, several of those joining the assault weapons bill are freshmen Democrats who won suburban districts previously represented by Republicans. “I don’t really see any reason for ordinary citizens to own weapons of war,” said Rep. Susan Wild (New Dem-PA), who represents a moderate Lehigh Valley district."

The obstacles continue to be Republicans who argue that the Democratic bills would infringe on law-abiding gun owners’ constitutional rights while doing little to prevent the actual causes of mass shootings. That is a perspective shared with a highly motivated slice of the party’s conservative base and promoted by its most aggressive advocacy group, the NRA.

“My concern is that what’s being proposed is not going to solve the root-cause problem,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) told reporters in mid-August when asked about red flag laws.

But there is a rising concern in the GOP that the party is putting itself at risk if it doesn’t take some kind of action to address the epidemic of mass bloodshed.

“If we’re not willing to do the common-sense stuff, probably legislation will occur that we’ll regret, that will actually, I think, infringe upon Second Amendment rights down the road, so I’m going to be one that’s going to look to try to do something,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) told reporters Friday.

Several Republicans have expressed openness to federal legislation on red flag laws, which are also known as “extreme-risk protection orders,” including such influential lawmakers as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (SC) and Sen. Marco Rubio (FL).

Daines suggested instead that juveniles who commit serious crimes or make felonious threats be prevented from purchasing weapons as adults-- a proposal that is getting serious consideration for inclusion in the White House package.

ABC News added that some groups are more likely to support gun control than others. "Among those who are very or somewhat worried that a mass shooting could occur in their community, 67 percent support banning the sale of assault weapons. That drops to 39 percent support among those who are less concerned about an attack occurring in their area. There are other big differences among groups when it comes to the assault weapons question. Women are 20 percentage points more likely than men to support banning the sale of these weapons, 65 percent versus 45 percent. While support is higher in urban areas than elsewhere, there’s a broad gap between urban women (of whom 73 percent support a ban) and urban men (of whom 52 percent do). And among political independents, 72 percent of women favor a ban, compared with 43 percent of men. Education is also a sharp divider. Support for banning assault weapons rises with more education, ranging from 72 percent of those with postgraduate degrees to 46 percent of those with no more than a high school diploma. But here, too, gender influences attitudes. Among women who haven’t gone beyond high school, 55 percent back an assault weapons ban; among their male counterparts, it’s 38 percent. Support for a ban reaches 71 percent among blacks, compared with 52 percent among whites. It differs by age, ranging from 63 percent among seniors to 49 percent among young adults. (Perhaps counterintuitively, support for banning assault weapons sales is higher among seniors even though they tend to be more conservative politically.) And politics is a very prominent factor, as likely will soon be on display in Washington. Eighty-one percent of Democrats support an assault weapons ban, compared with 55 percent of independents and 33 percent of Republicans."

The Political Calculus Around Assault Weapons

Domestic Terrorism by Nancy Ohanian

Dave Cicilline introduced his assault weapons sales ban on February 15 with lots of co-sponsors-- but not enough co-sponsors to pass it. Months went by and the only new co-sponsor was Susie Lee (New Dem-NV) in March. And then the NRA/GOP massacres in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton. The bill, which had been written off as dead, suddenly came alive again, much to Pelosi's distress. She worries that if the bill passes, it will damage re-election chances for some of the freshmen from red and purple districts. So she told Nadler to speed up the virtually meaningless background checks bill but to push the assault weapons ban as far into the future as he could. While she played the political games that are destroying the credibility of the Democratic Party, more and more members-- back in their home districts and feeling pressure from enraged constituents-- started co-sponsoring the bill.

Meanwhile, Señor Trumpanzee does nothing but blow smile up the national ass, claiming, falsely, to be working with Congress on a great big plan to end massacres, will assuring the NRA and his far right base that he won't even agree to background checks, the pathetic baby step Pelosi and her sad-sack team are willing to settle for. Trump claims the problem is mental health. On Sunday, on his way to his gold course, he told reporters that "It would be wonderful to say-- to say 'eliminate,' but we want to substantially reduce the violent crime-- and actually, in any form. This includes strong measures to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous and deranged individuals, and substantial reforms to our nation's broken mental health system...To reduce violence, we must also ensure that criminals with guns are put behind bars and kept off the streets." No more mentions of the "meaningful background checks" he promised after the slaughter in El Paso and Dayton. Back then he tweeted, completely falsely, "Serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on meaningful Background Checks." That means if the House passes a popular bill and McConnell refuses to allow it to come to the floor, or Trump vetoes it, voters will at least have clarity of who to blame for the next massacre.

On June 6 Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX) and Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ) plus 3 freshmen, Katie Porter (D-CA), Susan Wild (New Dem-PA) and Chris Pappas signed on as co-sponsors. The following week, Cynthia Axne (New Dem-IA), Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI) plus Peter King of Long Island, the first Republican, signed on. Other Republicans said they wouldn't co-sponsor but thatchy would vote for the bill if Pelosi allowed a vote. She freaked out and falsely claimed there were still not enough votes. Four more conservative Democrats were being pummeled by their constituents and signed on the following week: Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-Blue Dog-VA), Abby Finkenauer (D-IA), TJ Cox (New Dem-CA) and Josh Harder (D-CA) announced that they are now co-sponsors. And on Friday Katie Hill (New Dem-CA), Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ) and Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), finally got on the right side of history.

74% of suburban women want this ban passed. Democrats in urban and suburban districts can't keep opposing it. Rural districts are another story. Incumbents in very rural districts may be endangering their reelection changes by backing the bill. May be; we don't know for sure.

But more than half of the cowards who haven't co-sponsored yet are in districts with negligible rural voters, most of whom vote Republican anyway. These members are endangering their reelection chances by not signing on. It would be interesting if San Francisco voters finally decided to put Pelosi out to pasture. It's a 100% urban district and it's a district that wants a ban on assault weapons. It would be delightful if the voters decided that Pelosi isn't representing them any longer. It's time. She doesn't.

Looking at Gun Legislation by Nancy Ohanian

Of the 28 incumbents still not backing the sales ban, 17 are in districts where they are hurting themselves by not signing on. These two lists are in order of what percent of the voters come from rural areas in the district, where there are some voters who oppose banning assault weapons:

• NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)- 0%
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- 0
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- 0
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- 0
• Andy Kim (D-NJ)- 0.2
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)- 1.3
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 1.5
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- 1.8
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- 2.0
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- 2.2
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 5.0
• Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)- 5.1
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- 8.2
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- 11.2
• Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)- 11.4
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 13.1
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- 15.4

On the Fence Voter by Nancy Ohanian

These 12 incumbents each has a somewhat significant number of rural voters are may be calculating the odds, some like Cuellar, DeFazio and O'Halleran-- who have primary battles-- badly and some, like Peterson, shrewdly.

• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 24.5%
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 28.9
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- 29.8
• Pete DeFazio (D-OR)- 36.8
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- 40.9
• Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL)- 42.7
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- 52.4
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)- 65.4
• Jared Golden (D-ME)- 71.9
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 73.1
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 92.9

I'd like to make note that it still isn't smart for Democrats to vote the NRA line-- especially not if they have a primary to face. Tom O'Halleran, a former Republican legislator pretending to be a Democrat of sorts now, does have a tough primary and the progressive candidate, Eva Putzova, is running on a platform that includes fighting for sane gun laws. "Most Americans support an assault weapons ban," she told me last night. "Unlike my opponent, I support the Cicilline bill which bans the sale of these weapons prospectively. We need to remove them from circulation so angry, disturbed individuals do not have access to them to commit mayhem. We can no longer remain immobile in the face of the slaughter taking place in our communities. But we also need to do so much more, including implementing universal background check and buy-back program and passing red flag laws."

207 Of The 235 Democrats In The House Have Signed Onto The Assault Weapons Ban-- These Are The 28 Who Still Refuse

by Mai-Thu Perret

The great state of Texas reacts to NRA/GOP massacre in red hellhole: "A bulk of gun law changes took effect in Texas on Sunday, loosening restrictions just one day after a mass shooting near Odessa and Midland left at least 7 people dead. The laws open more opportunities for Texans to have firearms and store ammunition in public places. From churches to public schools to foster homes, the laws also loosen restrictions on where a firearm is permitted. The laws were already set to take effect Sept. 1 but come just one day after a routine traffic stop on Interstate 20 triggered a deadly shooting rampage."

Odessa is the county seat of Ector County and right up Route 20 is Midland, county seat of Midland, Texas. Both are in Texas' 11th congressional district, which is represented by gun-nut Michael Conaway. It's a hideous red bastion of grotesque ignorance and anti-Jesus commercial-evangelicalism. Trump won the district 77.8% to 19.1%, his second worst performance in the state. If there's one district that wouldn't mind sacrificing a a few friends and neighbors-- maybe even family members to the NRA/GOP-- as long as they could keep their assault weapons, TX-11 is the place.

Only one Republican in Congress has signed on as a co-sponsor to David Cicilline's ban on the sales of assault weapons. Only one.

Last year Beto spent a lot of time campaigning in red hellholes like Midland and Odessa. It didn't do any good. And the Democratic candidate, Jennie Lou Leader lost to Conaway, 176,603 (80.1%) to 40,631 (18.4%). Hard to imagine that many Democrats could live in a place like TX-11. Midland is the most populous county in the district and Ector is the 3rd most populated. The PVI of the district as a whole is a horrifying R+32. Last year Midland County was an R+60 and Ector was an R+46. That doesn't mean the people there deserve to be shot down in the street like dogs. But... better them than normal people in Gilroy, El Paso or Dayton.

The gun nut is dead. The news isn't reporting how many MAGA hats they found in his truck. Almost everyone in Odessa and everyone in Midland owns guns. No one stopped him. If only some teachers had some AK-47s maybe one of them would have! The guy was on a shooting spree, driving around shooting people randomly from his truck (and then from a hijacked mail delivery truck, the way some asshole might do to animals in Africa. 21 people were shot--including 3 cops and a 2 year old; 7 people are in critical condition-- and so far 7 have died, plus the murderer. One less Trump/Conaway voter anyway. Police killed him in a gun fight in a movie theater.

Matt Schaefer is an attorney with a degree from Texas Tech University School of Law and serves as a state legislator from Tyler, in the very backward northeast part of Texas. Best known as an anti-choice extremist-- many would say psychopath-- he tweeted today that only prayer can stop the NRA/GOP massacres. He adamantly opposes background checks and makes a big fuss over how single mothers should be carring guns. As far as we know, Schaefer wasn't shooting anyone; but the blood of those victims are on his hands and on the hands of legislators like him-- not just in Texas, but all over the country... but mostly in Texas.

Pence: "Our hearts go out to all the victims and families who had loved ones lose their lives." We should only be so lucky as to see his and Trump's hearts cut into pieces and sent to Midland and Odessa. Beto-- and most normal people-- had a different perspective: "We need to end this epidemic."

David Cicilline's bill to ban the sale of assault weapons (H.R.196), which Pelosi is preventing from being voted on, now has 208 co-sponsors, 207 of the 235 Democrats in the House plus one Republican, Peter King from Long Island. The most recent reluctant co-sponsors finally came on board Friday: Katie Hill (New Dem-CA), Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ) and Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). Considering that the bill was introduced February 15, it took quite a few murders for the most recent converts to work up the guts to sign on. I bet you're wondering who the 28 Democrats still refusing to sign on, right? The culprits:

• NANCY PELOSI (D-San Francisco, city of shame)
• Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL + Chair of DCCC who should be fired immediately)
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)
• Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)
• Jared Golden (D-ME)
• Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Andy Kim (D-NJ)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
• Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Lauren Underwood (D-IL)
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)

No Political Appetite For... by Nancy Ohanian

It is a mistake for any Democrat-- or for mainstream Republican for that matter-- to refuse to get behind David Cicilline's assault weapons bill. But the members whose names I have bolded on the list above... for them it is probably suicidal as well as just plain stupid. Suburban women are going to remember who supported and who refused to support this bill. And-- while we're on the subject-- please remember, if you contribute any money at all to the DCCC, it does not go to progressive candidates or progressive incumbents; it goes to the people on this list. Cheri Bustos wants to replicate her hideous self in the Democratic caucus and run for speaker. She's against Cicilline's sales ban. That's your DCCC, folks. Don't forget when they come sniffing around begging for contributions.

Trump's Legacy: Not A Wall, Not Greenland-- All The Americans Killed With Assault Weapons While He Felated Wayne

Want to know why there is no ban on the sales of assault weapons? You're looking at it

When David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced his sales ban on assault weapons, H.R. 1296 on February 15, dozens and dozens of Democrats-- but no Republicans-- signed on as cosponsors. And then Pelosi and Hoyer hung it out to dry-- too dangerous to the conservative freshmen who didn't want to be forced to vote yes or vote no on something so crucial and so important to their constituents, who overwhelmingly favor it. Pelosi's brain is mostly melted and she no longer understands that her flock needs to inspire Democratic and independent turnout instead of persuading Republicans who aren't going to vote for them anyway.

Since the latest 3 NRA massacres, Cicilline's bill has come back to life with 11 new Democrats-- mostly conservatives in purple districts-- and one Republican (Peter King in a super-suburban Long Island district) have come on board. There are only 33 Democrats still refusing to sign one, almost all reactionary Blue Dogs and cowardly New Dems like Colin Allred (New Dem-TX), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX), Josh Harder (New Dem-CA), Katie Hill (New Dem-CA), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA), Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Filemon (Blue Dog-TX) and other congressional ne're-do-wells.

Three Democrats signed on this week right after Republican Peter King did-- Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI), Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA) and Abby Finkenauer (IA). Just in time to not come under fire from March For Our Lives, the survivors of the Parkland Florida gun rampage. One of their top demands is "a federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It’s simple: weapons of war that enable more casualties during mass shootings should not be allowed on our streets and in our communities. We’ve debated this for decades and it’s time to get it done." And there's a lot more tp what they're doing:

I'm hoping that when they go after Republican enablers they remember NRA enablers who might have a "D" next to his or her name. Remember, many of the worst offenders also have primary opponents. For example:

• Assault rifle and NRA lover Henry Cuellar will have to face Jessica Cisernos.
• Assault rifle and NRA lover Tom O'Halleran will have to face Eva Putzover.
• Assault rifle and NRA lover Kurt Schrader will have to face Mark Gamba.

This is, in part, what March For Our Lives is asking for. It makes sense and polling shows that a strong majority of Americans support their goals-- not Trump and not conservatives in Congress, but normal people. Meanwhile, please consider contributing to the progressive candidates taking on assault weapons and NRA champions. The NRA will spend immense amounts of money-- they took tens of millions from the Kremlin, which is hoping to sow anomie and discord in our country. Click on the thermometer on the right and contribute what you can.

1- CHANGE THE STANDARDS OF GUN OWNERSHIP

Advocate and pass legislation to raise the national standard for gun ownership: a national licensing and registry system that promotes responsible gun ownership; a ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other weapons of war; policies to disarm gun owners who pose a risk to themselves or others; and a national gun buy-back program to reduce the estimated 265-393 million firearms in circulation by at least 30%.

2- HALVE THE RATE OF GUN DEATHS IN 10 YEARS

Mobilize an urgent and comprehensive federal response: declare a national emergency around gun violence and announce an audacious goal to reduce gun injuries and deaths by 50% in 10 years, thereby saving up to 200,000 American lives.

3- ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE GUN LOBBY AND INDUSTRY

Hold the gun lobby and industry accountable for decades of illegal behavior and misguided policies intended to shield only themselves; reexamine the District of Columbia v. Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment; initiate both FEC and IRS investigations into the NRA, and fully repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

4- NAME A DIRECTOR OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION

Appoint a National Director of Gun Violence Prevention (GVP) who reports directly to the President, with the mandate to operationalize our federal goals and empower existing federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-- agencies that have all been structurally weakened by the gun lobby. The National Director of GVP would begin by overseeing a down payment of $250 million in annual funding for research by the CDC and other federal agencies on gun violence prevention.

5- GENERATE COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS

Fully fund targeted interventions addressing the intersectional dimensions of gun violence, including community-based urban violence reduction programs, suicide prevention programs, domestic violence prevention programs, mental and behavioral health service programs, and programs to address police violence in our communities.

6- EMPOWER THE NEXT GENERATION

Automatically register eligible voters and mail voter registration cards to all Americans when they turn 18. Create the “Safety Corps,” a Peace Corps for gun violence prevention. The younger generations are disproportionately affected by gun violence. They should have a say in how their country solves this epidemic.

We don’t have to live like this: in fear for our lives and our families. The federal government has failed in its responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of the public with regard to the nation’s gun violence epidemic. The time for comprehensive and sweeping reform is now. We need ambitious leadership throughout the whole of government to stand in opposition to the gun lobby and industry in order to secure a peaceful America for generations to come.

Meanwhile, in an alternative universe...



He's one flip-floppin' piece of dung, that "president" of yours. Politico reported yesterday that he "offered what appeared to be another pivot in his views on gun control measures, saying the nation’s background check system is 'already strong' but that he has 'an appetite' for plugging loopholes in the federal process. In the wake of shootings in California, Texas and Ohio, the president spoke with Democratic lawmakers about the issue, declaring he was open to hearing a number of solutions. But Trump also denied that he had been influenced by recent talks with NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after reports that the president had spoken by phone with LaPierre onTuesday to inform him that so-called universal background checks touted by advocates were off the table."

“We have background checks, but there are loopholes in the background checks. That’s what I spoke to the NRA about yesterday,” he argued. “They want to get rid of the loopholes as well as I do. At the same time, I don’t want to take away people’s Second Amendment rights.”

In the weeks since back-to-back mass shootings, Trump has waffled on strengthening background checks, at first offering gun control advocates hope that he would ignore the protests of the gun lobby and push the issue before apparently retreating over the weekend.

On Aug. 7, he told reporters that he was “all in favor” of pushing background check legislation, calling the issue “important.” And as recently as a week ago, Trump professed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who’d been blocking the chamber from bringing up House-passed background check bills, was on board.

“I believe that Mitch-- and I can tell you, from my standpoint, I would like to see meaningful background checks. And I think something will happen,” the president said, adding that he had also talked with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the leading gun control advocates in the chamber.

Trump began to back off publicly late last week, parroting talking points often offered by groups like the National Rifle Association and providing an opening that Republican lawmakers seized on.

“We are working very hard to make sure we keep guns out of the hands of insane people and those who are mentally sick and shouldn’t have guns,” he said Thursday at a campaign rally in New Hampshire. “But people have to remember, however, that there is a mental illness problem that has to be dealt with. It’s not the gun that pulls the trigger. It’s the person holding the gun.”

Before the rally, he suggested to reporters that he was looking at reopening mental institutions, as well.

On Sunday, as he returned to Washington from his New Jersey club, Trump told the media that “I don’t want people to forget that this is a mental health problem. People don't realize we have very strong background checks right now.”

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday, the president claimed there are “very strong” background checks in place currently, but that there are “missing areas and areas that don’t complete the whole circle-- and we’re looking at different things.”

On Wednesday he reiterated that position, saying that “I have an appetite for background checks-- we’ll be doing background checks. We’re working with Democrats, we’re working with Republicans, and we already have very strong background checks.”

While denying that his position had changed, he asserted that, though he thought Congress had room to “close up the gaps” and enact “meaningful” fixes to the existing background check process, “we cannot let that slope go so easy.”

Trump rejected a reporter’s suggestion that his references to a “slippery slope” of gun control laws were plucked from NRA talking points, claiming his rhetoric was “a Trump talking point. You approve one thing, and then another thing, then another thing. Then all of a sudden you're on that slope and then all of a sudden nobody has any legal protection.”

He allowed that “there are certain weaknesses” in current law, which he predicted lawmakers would be able to address. But, he said, “I'm concerned that no matter what we agreed to, when we get there, I'm concerned that Democrats will say, ‘Oh, well, we now want this.’ It's a slippery slope.”

The slippery slope is how many people have been killed with guns since Putin put Trump into the White House to screw up our country and generally disrupt the West. That will go down as the most successful Russian foreign policy initiative since hordes of Cossacks rode into Paris and deposed Napoleon. Trump still isn't giving up on Greenland though.