Safeguarding the Second Amendment – The Highland County Press

By U.S. Rep. Blaine LuetkemeyerR-Missouri

[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 1791, our Founding Fathers saw it necessary to amend the United States Constitution with the Second Amendment in order to give the citizens of this country the right to bear arms and defend themselves.

American families have the right to feel safe and secure in their own homes, and exercising Second Amendment rights is a way to help do just that. As a representative in Congress, I take my role as a defender of the Constitution very seriously, especially when it comes to protecting our right to possess firearms.

Missouri has recently been in the national spotlight with the McCloskey familys situation in St. Louis. Earlier this month, Mark and Patricia McCloskey were photographed holding firearms after being confronted and harassed by an angry mob of rioters outside of their St. Louis home.

Feeling extremely threatened and unsafe on their own private property, the McCloskeys were well within their rights to bear arms to protect themselves. Our states Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law both explicitly give Missourians the right to defend themselves and their property.

Unfortunately, Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has been using the McCloskeys case for political gain and fundraising efforts even before any charges were filed. Thankfully, Attorney General Schmitt and Governor Parson have both recognized this gross injustice and infringement on the McCloskeys freedom and are working to have their names cleared.

While Missouri is home to the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law, nothing of the sort exists in the federal level. In order to protect Second Amendment rights of Americans across the country, I am a proud cosponsor of fellow Missourian Congressman Jason Smiths bill, the American Family and Private Property Defense Act. This legislation would prevent an American citizen from being prosecuted for the use of force against an intruder as long as that force was used to protect themselves, another individual or private property. I am hopeful we will be able to get this bill passed to ensure Second Amendment rights nationwide are safeguarded.

With repeated calls from Democrats to defund the police and the violent rioting taking place across America, our Second Amendment rights are more meaningful than ever. Having the ability to protect your property, your family and yourself is a fundamentally American right that I firmly believe in, and I will continue to be a strong defender of the Second Amendment in Congress.

Read more:

Safeguarding the Second Amendment - The Highland County Press

Donald Trump attacked by Joe Biden for ‘shameful’ comments that he would ‘hurt God’ if elected – ABC News

Joe Biden says it is "shameful", and "beneath the office he holds" for Donald Trump to claim the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee would "hurt God" if he were elected US president.

Earlier this week Mr Trump claimed Mr Biden was "against God", despite Mr Biden frequently discussing how his Catholic faith has guided his actions as a public official.

"He's following the radical left agenda: take away your guns, destroy your second amendment, no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God," Mr Trump said.

"He's against God."

After the address Mr Trump went on to deliver a campaign-style speech at a factory in nearby Clyde, Ohio. He did not explain further what he meant.

With Mr Trump trailing Mr Biden in four recent polls in Ohio, the US President is fighting to win voters in the traditional swing state as the coronavirus pandemic threatens his chances of a second term.

Mr Trump's accusation could solidify support from his party's sizable conservative Christian bloc and also damage voters' view of Mr Biden, the first Catholic vice-president in US history.

John Kennedy was the first and only Catholic elected US president when he won in 1960.

In a statement on Thursday night, Mr Biden said Mr Trump's attack was "shameful" and that faith had been "the bedrock foundation" of his life.

"It's beneath the office he holds and it's beneath the dignity the American people so rightly expect and deserve from their leaders," Mr Biden said in the statement.

"However, like the words of so many other insecure bullies, President Trump's comments reveal more about him than they do about anyone else.

"They show us a man willing to stoop to any low for political gain, and someone whose actions are completely at odds with the values and teachings that he professes to believe in."

More than three-fourths of Americans practise Christianity or another religion, according to non-partisan think tank the Pew Research Centre.

Mr Trump has been hurt politically by his response to the coronavirus pandemic, which has recently killed on average more than 1,000 Americans each day.

While he speaks very little about his own Presbyterian faith and rarely attends church, Mr Trump works closely with evangelical Christians and puts their causes of restricting abortion and preserving gun ownership at the top of his policy agenda.

After a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut killed 20 children in 2012, Mr Biden pushed for some restrictions on gun ownership, but he has not called for confiscating firearms.

He has said he would seek to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, let people who own assault weapons sell them back voluntarily, and expand background checks.

The second amendment of the US constitution gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

Reuters

Original post:

Donald Trump attacked by Joe Biden for 'shameful' comments that he would 'hurt God' if elected - ABC News

Severe weather knocks out power throughout Shenandoah Valley – WHSV

New Yorks attorney general sued the National Rifle Association on Thursday, seeking to put the powerful gun advocacy organization out of business over claims that top executives illegally diverted tens of millions of dollars for lavish personal trips, no-show contracts for associates and other questionable expenditures.Attorney General Letitia James lawsuit, filed in Manhattan state court, highlighted misspending and self-dealing claims that have roiled the NRA and its longtime leader, Wayne LaPierre, in recent years from hair and makeup for his wife to a $17 million post-employment contract for himself.Its clear that the NRA has been failing to carry out its stated mission for many, many years and instead has operated as a breeding ground for greed, abuse and brazen illegality, she said at a news conference. Enough was enough. We needed to step in and dissolve this corporation.Simultaneously, Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine like James, a Democrat sued the NRA Foundation, a charitable arm of the organization designed to provide programs for firearm safety, marksmanship and hunting safety, accusing it of diverting funds to the NRA to help pay for lavish spending by its top executives.In a statement, NRA President Carolyn Meadows labeled James a political opportunist who was pursuing a rank vendetta with an attack on its members Second Amendment rights.You could have set your watch by it: the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle, said Meadows, who announced a countersuit by the NRA in federal court in Albany that could set the stage for a drawn-out legal battle lasting well past Novembers election.The New York lawsuit made only civil claims, but James said the investigation was ongoing and any criminal activity discovered would be referred to prosecutors and the Internal Revenue Service.The NRA's financial troubles, James said, were long cloaked by loyal lieutenants but became public as deficits piled up. The organization went from a nearly $28 million surplus in 2015 to a $36 million deficit in 2018.James argued that the organizations prominence and cozy political relationships enabled a culture where nonprofit rules were routinely flouted and state and federal laws were violated. Even the NRAs own bylaws and employee handbook were ignored, she said.Though it is headquartered in Virginia, the NRA was chartered as a nonprofit in New York in 1871 and continues to be incorporated in the state.

Go here to see the original:

Severe weather knocks out power throughout Shenandoah Valley - WHSV

New York Attorney General Files Suit Seeking To Dissolve The NRA – Connecticut Public Radio

The attorney general of New York called for the dissolution of the National Rifle Association in a lawsuit filed Thursday.

The suit, filed by Attorney General Letitia James, accuses top NRA leaders of using the gun rights groups funds for personal gain and engaging in a pattern of fraud to conceal their actions.

James office has been investigating the organization for more than a year. The investigation found a a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA that was illegal, oppressive, and fraudulent, and that contributed to the loss of millions of dollars, according to a statement by the attorney generals office.

The NRA is headquartered in Fairfax County, Virginia, but is chartered in New York, giving James jurisdiction. The New York Attorney Generals office brought a case that led to the closing of President Trumps foundation in 2018.

The suit targets NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre specifically, as well as current and former lieutenants. LaPierre was re-elected as executive vice president and chief executive officer after a bitter internal battle and a controversial vote at the organizations 2019 convention, which saw the ouster of Oliver North as NRA president.

James suit lists dozens of instances of alleged financial wrongdoing, including the use of millions of dollars for personal gifts and travel expenses. It also claims that LaPierre retaliated against those who questioned his practices.

The NRA, and LaPierre, have been dogged by allegations of self-dealing and misspent funds for years. And though gun sales have skyrocketed during the pandemic, the NRA has stumbled financially.

Meanwhile, the NRA released a statement blasting the lawsuit as a baseless, premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment and seemed to imply they were filing a countersuit.

Its a transparent attempt to score political points, the statement says, and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda.

The groups financial troubles are well known and it recently laid off dozens of staffers. James Fishman, a former New York assistant attorney general who wrote a book on the states non-profit laws, said he thinks the NRA may feel pressure to settle the case.

The cost of litigation will be in the millions of dollars for the NRA, Fishman said. And I dont think the NRA at this particular point in time has millions of dollars to spend on it.

Attorney Doug Varley, an expert in non-profit law, said the lawsuit is an example of oversight of big non-profits shifting from the federal government to state regulators.

I think this action by the New York attorney general is really a dramatic confirmation that the states are taking regulation very seriously, he said. And in particular that theyre investing the resources to take on major institutions, not just the small nonprofits.

President Donald Trump weighed in on Twitter, tying the lawsuit to his re-election campaign: Just like Radical Left New York is trying to destroy the NRA, if Biden becomes President your GREAT SECOND AMENDMENT doesnt have a chance. Your guns will be taken away, immediately and without notice. No police, no guns!

The NRA reportedly contributed more than $30 million to Trumps 2016 election campaign. The organization was accused of being a foreign asset for Russia in the period leading up to the 2016 election, according to an 18-month investigation by the Senate Finance Committees Democratic staff.

If James lawsuit is successful and the NRA is dissolved it wouldnt necessarily mean the end of the organization. It could reform in a new, perhaps more gun-friendly, state.

Guns & America is a public media reporting project on the role of guns in American life.

Read more:

New York Attorney General Files Suit Seeking To Dissolve The NRA - Connecticut Public Radio

Guns taken in 1st local case involving Virginia’s new ‘red flag’ law – Northern Virginia Daily

WINCHESTER "What's the point in living?" "I just want to die."

Those were the comments police said a man made prior to having his guns taken in the first local case involving Virginias new "red flag" law. The case was adjudicated on Monday in Winchester Circuit Court.

The 45-year-old Winchester man made the suicidal threats while in possession of a pistol on July 17, according to police. He voluntarily surrendered three guns to police and will not be allowed to possess guns until at least Jan. 30. The man didn't attend the hearing on the "substantial risk order," according to Marc Abrams, Winchester commonwealth's attorney. The Winchester Star isn't naming the man because he hasn't been charged with a crime.

The new law, which went into effect July 1, is designed to keep guns away from potentially violent people. There are approximately 36,000 gun deaths annually in the U.S. including about 1,000 in Virginia, according to the Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which analyzed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics. That includes about 22,000 suicides and nearly 13,000 homicides.

Virginia and at least 16 states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws. Virginia's law says a person posing a "substantial risk of injury" to themselves or others can't buy, own or transport guns.

The red flag law and other gun control measures passed the Democratically-controlled General Assembly earlier this year in Richmond, despite fierce opposition from gun rights advocates. In January, about 22,000 gun owners protested the legislation at the state capitol. Resolutions in support of Second Amendment rights were also adopted by many Virginia localities, including Clarke and Frederick counties.

Critics of the red flag law said it could lead to guns being taken away unjustly.

In the local incident, police responded to an unnamed store after a clerk said a man in an "agitated state" in possession of an ammunition clip had left the store and was in the store parking lot rifling through the trunk of his vehicle, according to court documents. When police tried to secure the gun they said was in the trunk, they said the man became angry and made a series of suicidal remarks, including "I'm not going to say I'm going to kill myself, but I'll speed up death,""I'm on the fast track to death" and"I wake up crying every day." He was then taken to Winchester Medical Center.

Under the new law, the man was served with an emergency substantial risk order on July 18, which required him to turn in his guns to police. It gives authorities 14 days to hold a court hearing or return the guns. On July 20, the man turned in two semi-automatic pistols and a pump-action shotgun.

At the hearing, a judge issued a 180-day substantial risk order, which is the maximum time the guns can be held. The order can either expire, allowing the guns to be returned, or authorities can hold another hearing and try to keep them.

Abrams said he understands some Second Amendment supporters dislike the law, but the case met the legal standard for taking the guns. "We'll have to see if it's effective," he said.

Continue reading here:

Guns taken in 1st local case involving Virginia's new 'red flag' law - Northern Virginia Daily

Junge wins tight 8th District GOP primary for Congress, will face Slotkin – The Detroit News

Former television anchor and prosecutorPaul Junge appears to be the winner of the 8th Congressional District Republican primarywith individual county results showinghim ahead of real estate agent Mike Detmer by 6 percentage points.

If the unofficial results are certified, Jungewill faceDemocratic U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Holly in November after a tight primary Wednesday as the GOP battles to take back the 8th Congressional District seat.The Associated Press has not yet called the race.

With 100% of precincts reporting Wednesday morning, Junge led a crowded field, capturing 35%of the vote. He was followed by real estate agentDetmer of Howell with 29% of the vote andFowlerville lawyerKristina Lykeat25% percent of the vote.

Marine veteran Al Hoover was last with about 11%.

The candidates' vote ratio remained relatively steady throughout Tuesdaynight and into Wednesday with Junge inching a point or two ahead with each wave of new precinct results.

Paul Junge(Photo: Submitted)

Junge thanked his opponents early Wednesday morning.

"We must now unite to defeat Slotkin in November and together we will make Slotkin a one-term Member of Congress," Junge said on social media.

The 53-year-old Junge moved back to Michigan last year. Hespent 2014-18 in Washington, D.C., where he worked for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee before gaining a senior adviser position at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services when President Donald Trump took office. Junge also spent time working in the family business, All Star Maintenance, which maintains military housing.

Detmer, 44, meanwhile, ran as a constitutional patriot committed to bringing more pharmaceutical production into the United States, deregulating industries to bring jobs back to Michigan and protecting Second Amendment rights.

ELECTION RESULTS: Follow along for results

Each of the Republican candidates has listed the preservation of constitutional rights as a priority should they be elected, followed closely by tight restrictions on the foreign production of pharmaceuticals.

The GOP candidatesalso professed support for Trump, but said they would would speak their minds if they disagreed with the president.

The 8th Congressional District is comprised of the left-leaning Ingham County, the right-leaning Livingston County and part of Oakland County, whose Republican roots have steadily begun to turn blue.The makeup draws a diverse set of voters to the polls each election.

Caleb Kime, a 25-year-old Lansing man, cast his vote for Detmer because it was the name he recognized most based on yard signs, billboards and ads.

Im a Trump supporter, Kime said. I stand behind, for the most part, what most Republicans do. It's what Ive done since Ive been voting stick to what I feel is best.

Scott and Erica Ketchumof Holtcast a Democratic ballot Tuesday, opting for in-person voting instead of absentee because of worries about the potential for the ballot to be lost in the mail or a mistake in preparing his ballot. Scott Ketchum said hed had calls from the 8th Congressional District GOP candidates, but said he was likely to cast his ballot for Slotkin in November.

I havent minded the things that Elissa Slotkin has done, Scott Ketchum said. The things that Ive heard her attempting to do dont seem out of line with what I would think is reasonable.

U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin.(Photo: Carlos Osorio, AP)

Republican Mike Detmer is running for Congress in the 8th District, aiming to challenge Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly.(Photo: Courtesy of Mike Detmer's campaign)

The 8th Congressional District was flipped by Slotkin in 2018 when she beat Republican incumbent U.S. Rep. Mike Bishop by four percentage points. President Donald Trump won the district by nearly 7 percentage points in 2016.

Slotkiin ran unopposed in the primary and has more than $4.8 million in cash on hand for the November general election, a figure that dwarfs the roughly $520,000 Junge had on hand in July. None of the other candidates had raised more than $60,000 last quarter.

eleblanc@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/04/8th-congressional-district-republican-primary-junge-detmer-lyke-slotkin/5522785002/

Read the original:

Junge wins tight 8th District GOP primary for Congress, will face Slotkin - The Detroit News

Silence on Black lives is deafening here – The Journal

Call in the militia, and the storm troopers as well. A small band of Montezuma County residents has been marching on Main Street every Saturday for two months, bearing signs that say Black Lives Matter and calling for justice and peace. They organized with the blessing of St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, although many of the marchers are not even members. This has struck a nerve here in little ol Cortez.

Those who are unbothered by the deaths of unarmed Black people at the hands (or knees) of police must unite! They need to give the middle finger to these dangerous protesters, and to call them Nazis who want to riot and destroy America. They need to show up in droves to counter-protest with loud vehicles and Trump flags flying, to drown out the men, women and children who are marching behind a banner proclaiming words straight out of the Bible: What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Heaven forbid! We cant have that!

Its not clear what the Trumpers stand for, but clearly they are threatened. They love the Second Amendment, but that first one about free speech and expression? Not so much.

It says a lot about our community that so many of its citizens are outraged by calls for police reform and justice for all. If the majority of people feel otherwise, their silence is deafening.

Erin Turner-BirdCortez

Read more:

Silence on Black lives is deafening here - The Journal

Letter to the editor: Support Richard Traczyk on Aug. 8 – The Winchester Star

For the past several years Richard Traczyk has served as the president of Lake Holiday POA, a community we joined in 2004. His executive leadership skills have made Lake Holiday a fiscally stable and highly desirable community in which to live. He has successfully managed to bridge internal divides to bring people together for the overall good of the community.

These are the same political skills he would bring with him to Richmond to serve in the House of Delegates. In addition, he is pro-life and a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights.

Richard Traczyk is the right person to succeed and carry on the work former Representative Chris Collins began in representing all the citizens of Virginia's 29th District in the House of Delegates. I urge the voters of Frederick County, Winchester, and all of Virginia 29 to support Richard Traczyk on August 8 at the Millwood Firehouse/Banquet Hall near Costco. [Traczyk is seeking the Republican nomination to run for the 29th District seat in the Nov. 3 election.]

More:

Letter to the editor: Support Richard Traczyk on Aug. 8 - The Winchester Star

Letters to the Editor, Aug. 5 edition | Opinion – Hood River News

Songers sad words

Ive never met Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer, but after reading his delusional, divisive words as reported in the July 29 Columbia Gorge News, I thought what a mess our country would be in if we had a president like that. Oh, wait, we DO have a president like that! As a result, our country is experiencing its most tragic mess in several generations. Real leadership requires intelligence, wisdom, compassion, courage and perhaps most of all humility. Read the deeply wise yet humble words of Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address, delivered during the most difficult time in American history. Then read the wannabe tough-guy words of pretenders like Songer and Trump. See the difference?

Richard Iverson

Hood River

Divide and conquer

Reading the various letters to the editor in our paper tonight, sadly, the words divide and conquer come to mind. As a country, we are being dangerously manipulated into taking sides on all fronts. Our president calls those who dont support him all sorts of horrible names, our news media is delivering propaganda that fits best with the narratives of its viewers on both sides, and no one really knows the truth.

What I do know is that we are all people, most of whom love our country, though we might not agree on how to run it. We all love our families and want to love our communities where we live and get support. As humans we want what is best for our families, our health, our environment, our economy and our education system. We need a government that cares for and represents all of us, not just some of us. I dont believe we have that government in the White House or Senate right now.

I am a patriot; I love my country and want to see each person living here thrive and strive for happiness. I consider myself a democrat not a socialist or a communist. I decry the destruction of federal property and feel the government has a right to protect that property that is supported by our taxes. I also believe in BLM; its about time we stand up for reform. I dont support the federal government coming to our state against our will and savaging our people. For those of you who tend towards smaller federal government, supporting this action feels to me like hypocrisy. I support womens reproductive rights as well as the Second Amendment. What I dont support is putting guns in the wrong hands and taking away that precious and loved life after its born.

Susan Bellinson

Hood River

Land of plenty

We are facing tough times in our country, probably some of the toughest in our history. The effects from COVID-19, racism and climate change are creating hardships on top of hardships. People are anxious and, in many cases desperate, resulting in anger directed toward who and whatever they feel is at fault. The various media dont seem interested in easing tensions and, instead, stoke fears much of the time, creating divisions when we should be striving for unity.

I wish there were simple solutions to the whole mess but none of the problems will be eliminated until people realize that we all need and want the same thing: Security for ourselves and our families. This is something no American should deny their fellow citizens. Instead, we should try to eliminate any obstacles that keep people from achieving their fullest potential and support things that help rather than harm. We need to stop listening to the nay-sayers and fear-mongers and embrace the reality that we are still living in a land of plenty and when we all do better we all do better.

Michael Hustman

White Salmon

Keeping juries safe

The men and women who are called upon to serve on juries in both our federal and state courts have maintained a standard of fairness and excellence throughout the history of our country. They have demonstrated a vision and a will toward the administration of justice that is a wellspring of inspiration (U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1962).

As our society and our community strive to deal with these uncertain times caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the judicial system has been equally affected by systematic changes that we are seeing throughout all of our daily lives. The court system is a creature of routine that relies heavily upon the procedural safeguards that have been enacted to ensure that all legal system participants are afforded equal justice. Probably the most fundamental aspect of our judicial system involves the jury system used by the American court system. As noted by the Honorable Tom C. Clark, Texan and former justice of the United States Supreme Court, The jury system improves the quality of justice and is the sole means of keeping its administration attuned to community standards.

As we slowly ease our way back into our new normal, it is imperative that the court system continue to provide a forum for our citizenry to settle their disputes in a consistent, fair and evenhanded manner that represents our community standards. In order to effectively provide a safe and meaningful access to the justice system, we recognize that importance of reinstituting jury trials within our court rooms.

While jury trials have been placed on hold over the past few months, the Judges of Skamania and Klickitat county have been using the intervening time to prepare to safeguard our facilities and adopt practices that limit the risk of pandemic exposure to our jurors. We have been working with the other dedicated stakeholders who are doing their best to assist us daily to find short, medium and long-term solutions to keep our jurors safe upon their return to service. Together, we are conducting on site assessments of our facilities with public health officials to establish, amongst other things, (1) protocols for assembling jury pools in a safe and effective manner consistent with current health guidelines for social distancing and masking; and (2) procedures for proper cleaning and maintaining our facilities. The collective goal is to provide a safe environment for jurors when the time comes for reinstituting jury trials.

Please be assured that all of the judges in Skamania and Klickitat County recognize the concerns the public may have in participating in our jury system in the near future, but it cannot be said any stronger that our justice system cannot function without the help of our citizens who serve as jurors.

Justice in our Municipal, District and Superior courts depends on jury participation. We certainly miss our jurors. We look forward to the day when they are welcomed back. In the meantime, the entire team is working very hard to ensure the facilities they come back to are clean, healthy and safe for everyone. We are making plans to reinstitute jury trials in the near future and will continue to provide updates to our community members about the steps being taken for a safe reintroduction of jury trials in Skamania and Klickitat County.

Randall C. Krog

Skamania/Klickitat County

Superior Court Judge

Thanks for News

Thank you for combining three papers into one to make a great paper, that is willing to cover both sides of issues concerning community and political affairs. I must disagree with the letter titled Paper not the same." I respect her opinion, but I believe by combining the three papers, it brings the three communities together and has already proven there is room for liberals and conservatives and in between, which is the only way to report the news and accept letters to the editor.

When the new printing first came out, a friend from church said I should buy one and give it a chance and I'm so glad I did! Thank you to all who have worked so hard to organize and put this together. You have a new customer!

Jeri Rector

Parkdale

Running for future

My name is Devin Kuh and I am excited to announce my candidacy for State Representative District 14 Position 2. I am running for office to offer a progressive option who will fight for the most vulnerable in our communities and ensure that education, healthcare and economic opportunities are plentiful and fulfilling for all. Furthermore, I will fight to protect the environment in our district so it is able to provide for us and our families for generations. We need an economy and government structure that works for every person living within our district. Our current representatives have failed to do this. I have degrees in Math and Economics from Whitman College and have taught high school since 2013 for World Class Academy and The Bush School. When schools not in session I work as a guide and instructor for Wet Planet Whitewater. I just completed a masters degree in teaching math and science. Seeing the issues our district faces was a call to action for me. I knew I must get into this race and provide a different voice to my community members. One that centers on the health and wellbeing of us, our children, and our planet.

The world has changed too much in the past six months to continue with the status quo. To those with a more progressive view of the future for Southern Washington, I will work for you. Please join me in safeguarding our future.

Devin Kuh

White Salmon

Importance of BLM

An acquaintance recently drew my attention to the simple phrase words matter, a helpful reminder Ive tried to take to heart.

Recently, Ive been troubled by one particular word, the meaning of which conjures up horrific and brutal images. I do not want to lessen the words heinous history because it is important, I believe, even necessary, to remember when we, the human community, acted in inhuman ways.

The word I am struggling with is genocide. In my lifetime it has destroyed innumerable members of our human family from the final solution of Nazi Germany, to the killing fields of Cambodia, the Serbian execution of Bosnian neighbors, the Rwandan Tutsi slaughter, the Disappeared Ones of Argentina. The list marches on and on.

Coined in 1944, genocide, at its base means an intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part

Do we dare apply the term genocide to todays current events?

Can we see in the actions which led to the deaths of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Dion Johnson and countless others, patterns of genocidal destruction?

Look further, just below the surface, and youll see sanitized genocidal acts: Real estate redlining, discriminatory hiring practices, restrictive voting requirements. Dig a little deeper and you may recognize genocidal consequences when health care becomes unaffordable and unattainable, when arrests and incarcerations do not match the crime, when those at the bottom become shackled by hopelessness.

Wherever there is an intentional act to destroy a people in part or in whole, it is genocide, and we should be horrified.

This is why the Black Lives Matter movement is so important. It has risen up for the purpose of stopping a genocide and keeping the truth of what is really going on before us.

As one Portland protester observed, I didnt like seeing the graffiti on certain landmarks, but if thats what youre focusing on, youre getting mad about the wrong things.

Gary Young

Hood River

Delay and deceit

It has happened. The Great Violator has, via Twitter, made clear his desire and intention to delay the election until, presumably, he sees fit.

Experts have repeatedly compared to Donald Trumps rhetoric to that of past fascists, and I have repeatedly echoed the words of those experts. I have repeatedly warned that Donald Trump was going to try and delay, if not cancel outright, the 2020 election, and behold! It has come to pass.

The good news is that he has absolutely no electoral hope in Hades to win this election, if it is indeed free and fair.

So, if he wants to move the date of the election, I say we move it up. Im ready to vote his deceitful derrire out right now.

Experts have repeatedly compared to Donald Trumps rhetoric to that of past fascists, and I have repeatedly echoed the words of those experts. I have repeatedly warned that Donald Trump was going to try and delay, if not cancel out right, the 2020 election.

Benjamin Sheppard

Hood River

Benjamin Sheppard is employed as a social worker.

Least we can do

Today, I witnessed first hand the blatant disregard for other peoples well-being. Three women in a local grocery store refused to wear masks. When the store manager approached them, they used a medical reason for not being able to wear a mask. In truth, only a very small percentage of Americans have a legitimate health reason for shunning a mask. In fact, many people who suffer from chronic health problems benefit from wearing a mask to fight the virus.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democratic, dont we all want the same goal: To see the COVID numbers decrease so schools and places of business can reopen to their potential? If you arent wearing a mask, you are helping to spread this virus, plain and simple. And if its too invasive on your rights as an American, consider how you would feel if you infected a close friend or relative because of your refusal to slip on a mask for 20 minutes while you were out in public.

Lastly, look around at other people out in the stores. You cant tell who among them has cancer or other disease you cannot see. They are the high risk population that also needs to shop for food and supplies. No one has the right to decide that not wearing a mask is more important than those people who have been fighting for their lives. Just put on the mask. Its the least we all can do.

Mary Jensen

Mosier

Steps for health

I am one of many in the Mid-Columbia Gorge who appreciates the high quality of life available here due to abundant resources, breath-taking scenery, and fine, hard working people. During this time of the COVID-19 Pandemic, I am heartened when I see folks out and about who care enough for the well-being of our citizens and our economy to wear masks in public and to maintain social distancing. Those behaviors are choices, after all.

I urge everyone to make the choices that will get our children back into schools sooner rather than later, that will protect others including the elderly and those with chronic health conditions, and that will allow our local economy to open up safely and thrive. Although imperfect, these measures can protect our people and help flatten the curve : 1) Stay home if sick. 2) Cough or sneeze into your sleeve. 3) Wear masks in public spaces. Avoid touching your face. 4) Stay at least six feet away from those outside your household, when possible. 4) Wash/clean your hands frequently.

I applaud all efforts to act on behalf of the wellbeing of our schoolchildren, our families, our high risk populations, and our local economy.

Sue Pennington,

Citizen member, Klickitat County Board of Health

New dose needed

Last week I turned on Fox News to hear the true, unbiased story about President Trump and the intelligence test so many liberals are talking about. Much to my surprise, Fox pundit Chris Wallace appeared to be making fun of the president and his test results. Once I heard the really difficult questions, it all made sense.

Healthcare workers like me use the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening tool for patients suspected of having cognitive impairments which could limit their ability to take medications safely, drive, or use their phones to call for help.

Acing the MoCA only means the president can properly manage the medication prescribed for his delusions of grandeur. As for handling world diplomacy, managing nuclear weapons, or behaving in a mature, respectful manner, not so much.

As an aside, I am no doctor, but I suspect an increase in dosage could be therapeutic.

Steve Kaplan

Hood River

Term limits needed

A government by representatives elected by the people at short periods was our object and our maxim where annual election ends, tyranny begins. Thomas Jefferson to S. Adams, 1800.

Congressional term limits have been an ongoing conversation among Americans since the framers of our Constitution began their work. There have been term limits bills placed before our Federal Legislators, but none have resulted in a Constitutional Amendment to halt the rising number of career politicians. This is not a partisan issue. This is an American problem, and it is up to WE, THE PEOPLE, to act.

What is interesting to note is that, when surveyed, over 80 percent of Americans are in favor of term limits. Also interesting is how many times incumbents who have been in office for 30-plus years are voted back into office. Why is that? Some possible reasons:

Many Americans believe that Congress will never vote for term limits on itself. However, in 1995, the House passed a Constitutional Amendment limiting terms. It didnt pass, because any constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds supermajority vote.

Some folks will say that an election is a natural term limit. Unfortunately, when it comes to campaigning, the incumbent has an edge on the challenger, in that there is plenty of financing for his campaign from lobbyists. The challenger is faced with paying his own campaign costs, sometimes through donations or fund-raising at a grass-roots level.

We need experienced legislators in Washington. While this is true, and has been long-held standard by many Americans, it is also true that new ideas breathe life into a stale organization.

I support Congressional term limits, because I see our Congress forgetting who they REALLY work for: Us, the American people.

With the election coming up in November of this year, please remember that this is not JUST a presidential election. There are congressional seats being considered, as well. Do your homework. Check to see how long your legislators have been in office. Are you happy with their representation? Email your legislators in Washington, D.C. If we dont speak up, who will?

Gayle Davis

Redmond

Lack of leadership

We now have 150,000 deaths in the U.S. from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trumps lack of leadership and a national response in dealing with this out-of-control pandemic has moved Biden into a commanding lead over Trump in the latest polls, NOT because of the impeachment of the president, NOT Trumps involvement with Russia in interfering in the 2016 election, NOT the Mueller report which concluded the president obstructed justice, NOT the payment to a porn star and a playboy bunny to buy their silence of their affairs with the president prior to the 2016 election, NOT the Hollywood Access tapes where Trump described his sexual assault on women, NOT the sexual assault and rape charges filed by several women against the president, NOT the 20,000-plus documented lies by the president, NOT the assault on the rule of law and the Justice Department, NOT the assault on NATO and our allies, NOT denying climate change and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, NOT for being silent over Intelligence reports of Russia putting a bounty on our brave soldiers in Afghanistan, NOT for taking Putins word over our own Intelligence Agencies, NOT for Trumps verbal assault on women and especially women of color, NOT for calling the free press an enemy of the people, NOT for threatening to not accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, NOT for putting unidentified federal troops dressed in camouflage detaining and tear gassing peaceful protestors on the streets of Portland, Ore., NOT for withdrawing from the World Health Organization in the middle of the worst pandemic in 100 years, NOT for commuting Roger Stones prison sentence to buy his silence in testifying against Trump, NOT for illegally profiting from the power of the presidency by using tax payer money for secret service and staff staying at various Trump properties, and NOT for separating children from their parents at the Mexican border.

Maybe voters have become exhausted and tired of all of it and decided it is time to restore leadership, dignity, respect, decency, empathy, honesty, and democracy to the Presidency and the country.

Robert Havig

White Salmon

See more here:

Letters to the Editor, Aug. 5 edition | Opinion - Hood River News

When the First Amendment meets the Second Amendment | Our Columnists – Aitkin Independent Age

The First Amendment met the Second Amendment in June when a Missouri couple were confronted with protestors over police brutality in the wake of the George Floyd murder on May 25 in Minneapolis.

The couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, drew firearms on the crowd to defend their home, they said. This happened after the large group of protestors marched past their front gates, proceeded to their mansion, and made threats, according to the McCloskeys in a Fox News interview.

Patricia McCloskey stated that member(s) from the protest group said they were going to kill them, live in their house after they were dead (while pointing to different rooms they would live in), burn down their home, and that threats were made against their dog which was outside the home.

No shootings from the rifle or the handgun that the couple was wielding occurred.

But what did occur were felony charges made by the St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner against the McCloskeys, citing unlawful use of a weapon.

The couples attorney, Joel J. Schwartz, was quoted in a July 20 Washington Post article saying the charges were disheartening, and he believes, unequivocally, that no crime was committed. He went on to say that he supports the First Amendment right of every citizen to have their voice but that the First Amendment must be balanced with the Second Amendment and Missouri law which entitles people to protect their home and family from potential threat under the Castle Doctrine Law.

The prosecutor went one step further beyond the charges; the McCloskeys had their firearms seized. A search warrant was obtained and the guns were seized by law enforcement.

Situations like the one the McCloskeys found themselves in are perhaps why a large group of Second Amendment supporters attended the Mille Lacs County Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution public hearing at the Historic Courthouse last Tuesday, July 21. Their voices were heard as they exercised their First Amendment rights in defense, or in one case, against, the proposed resolution.

Both Amendments, First and Second, have come under attack as of late. Some reason that hate speech incites violence and believe the First Amendment must be revisited. And were now in a cancel culture where if a group of individuals deems certain words as hateful, their livelihoods are canceled.

Of course we know terroristic threats must never be tolerated, but as Americans, we must reject this new form of attack on personal liberties. Whether its sending someone to jail over lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights or canceling someone for disagreement over the choice of their words, we must reject this and stand for liberties.

The group Human Rights Watch, in their fight against all forms of repression of speech in the media and around the globe, states: How any society tolerates those with minority, disfavored, or even obnoxious views will often speak to its performance on human rights more generally.

The press must remain free to exercise independence, uncontrolled by a government, a political force or social system. This needs to happen in order to maintain transparency for those very entities which the people should dictate, not the powers given within those institutions. In the same manner, individuals must remain free in speech as liberation depends on such. And when our Second Amendment doesnt exist, weve lost our ability to protect ourselves against the most lethal of threats.

I was pleased to see the First Amendment exercised last Tuesday at the Courthouse in a respectful, non-violent way. We dont know that the outcome would have been the same for the McCloskeys had they not been able to exercise their Second Amendment right.

Traci LeBrun is the editor of the Messenger.

View original post here:

When the First Amendment meets the Second Amendment | Our Columnists - Aitkin Independent Age

Help Us Safeguard the Second Amendment – National Review

A man inspects a handgun at the National Rifle Association annual meeting in Indianapolis, Ind., April 28, 2019.(Lucas Jackson/Reuters)Youre not paranoid: Democrats do want to take your guns away.

There are many great reasons to contribute to the National Reviewwebathon, but I believe that none is more important than the publications steadfast defense of the Second Amendment.

After the outbreak of the coronavirus, millions of Americans, feeling helpless and besieged by forces outside their control, began purchasing firearms to protect their families, property, and community. Once the lawlessness and fanaticism of the Antifa protests began spreading across the country, the number of gun owners continued to climb. When Democrats began embracing the notion of defunding the police, even more citizens saw gun ownership as a necessity of contemporary life.

All of this has added up to the largest surge in gun ownership in American history. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, gun sales have nearly doubled in the first six months of 2020 compared with sales a year ago. If gun manufacturers could keep up with demand, there would probably be an even bigger buying spree.

The spike in gun ownership has occurred within diverse populations, creating millions of first-time gun owners, many of them women and minorities. All of which means that making the philosophical, legal, and historical case for the Second Amendment a right that undergirds all our other liberties has never been more important.

No one does it as well as National Review. And were busy. Attacks on the Second Amendment have been coming from all sides. As Mairead McArdle recently reported, it is likely that conservative justices declined to take up an important Second Amendment case after John Roberts signaled he would side with the left-wing faction of the court. Even before the pandemic broke out, David B. Kopel, one of the nations leading intellectuals on gun issues, warned that District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, was in a precarious legal situation, as courts abdicate their responsibility to uphold the rights of gun owners around the country.

As the pandemic spread, and states began using COVID-19 as a pretext to shutter gun shops, attorney Howard Slugh made the case that such intrusions were unconstitutional, especially given that Americans had an even greater need to protect themselves in the middle of a national emergency.

The gun historian and lawyer Stephen P. Halbrook warned that history has proven that tyrannical government diktats, like the ones being signed by governors and mayors in many municipalities, might long outlast the crisis that inspired them.

Second Amendment champion and editor of NRO, Charles C. W. Cooke, argued that only the cops need guns and cops are racist and will kill you are irreconcilable positions. The right to defend your life and property, whether you are abandoned by the authorities or not, should be nonnegotiable.

One of most vital ways that National Reviewfights against gun restrictionists is by exposing the torrent of misleading coverage from the corporate media. As I recently noted in a piece about Politicos coverage of background checks, there is no issue in political life that is covered as poorly and dishonestly as guns, with the possible exception of religion. Reporters might let the mayor of Chicago deflect from her incompetence by blaming law-abiding gun owners. We dont.

If we dont debunk the New York Times 1619 Project fabulists, who now claim that the Second Amendment was adopted only so that Southerners could use guns to subdue slaves, who will?

With an election coming, its also crucial to point out the increasingly radical position that Democrats have staked out on the guns issue. At National Review, we understand that Joe Bidens often hysterical and inaccurate rhetoric on firearms is merely a warning sign for the type of harmful policies he and his party would support if Biden were to become president.

Since National Reviewhas no sugar daddy, no giant corporate sponsors, we rely on your generosity to keep doing our work. Please support us here, knowing you have our deep appreciation.

View original post here:

Help Us Safeguard the Second Amendment - National Review

Militias’ warning of excessive federal power comes true but where are they? – The Conversation US

Militias and many other Second Amendment advocates have long argued that their primary desire to own firearms often, many of them is rooted in a need to protect themselves and their families from a tyrannical federal government, or to discourage the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

But with the mayor of a major U.S. city warning that tyranny and dictatorship have already arrived on the streets in the shape of unidentified federal troops using questionable tactics militia groups appear reluctant to throw their lot in with protesters. In fact, many have been supporting government action to suppress peaceful demonstrators.

Certainly the scenes in Portland have alarmed civil liberties groups:Heavily armed and camouflaged federal officers, wearing no name tags or other insignia, are on the streets of Portland, Oregon, and have teargassed and arrested seemingly peaceful protesters with little or no provocation. President Donald Trump has said similar forces are coming to other cities many run by Democrats.

To some, it may look exactly like what the militias have been warning of.

As a scholar of the U.S. domestic militia movement, I have seen in recent months a new divide emerging in these groups.

Some, often calling themselves the boogaloo movement, see the current political unrest as an opportunity to wrest power from an overbearing federal government. Others support police and their enforcement of strict law and order, even if that means authorities using powerful weapons and overwhelming force.

Assessing what these groups are doing, and how they are discussing recent events, has become more difficult for observers like me in recent weeks. On June 30, Facebook announced it had removed hundreds of accounts and groups allegedly related to the boogaloo movement.

The move came in the wake of several arrests of alleged boogaloo adherents across the country, including three in Nevada accused of plotting to firebomb federal land and one in Texas accused of killing one police officer and critically injuring another.

Boogaloo groups still have a social media presence and, until recently when the portion of the site they used was closed, a large presence on the Reddit discussion site, where comments are loosely regulated and people can post anonymously.

Now the movements public face is smaller and harder to find without insider knowledge. For instance, until recently it was common to see groups with the words big igloo in their names, a play on the word boogaloo. After Facebooks crackdown, some groups are using the word icehouse or other synonyms that may not be as obvious. They are therefore harder for algorithms to find, but also for people to find whether to observe or to join in.

The groups who back the boogaloo imply, or even outright declare, that the U.S. is no longer a free country, and generally call for supporters to oppose, violently if necessary, federal forces and the government they represent.

In the days after George Floyds death, I saw some of these groups call for members to participate in protests opposing police violence. But I have not seen similar calls in response to federal officers violence in Portland.

That may change if federal forces do appear in other places, especially areas geographically closer to active back the boog supporters. It is also possible that the groups are discussing protests or other actions in less public ways, in private messages or on platforms like Parler, that have marketed themselves as friendlier toward a variety of conservative views.

There are still militia members who support police, often called back the blue groups. Commentators have observed that silence from them and other Second Amendment supporters certainly seems to be hypocritical, at best, and possibly supportive of tyranny in the current context.

Thats not the way they see it. They argue that one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government is to protect citizens from others who might infringe on their rights or safety. They support police who say that Portland authorities have failed to protect regular people from violent protesters.

Thats also what these groups claimed happened in Seattles autonomous zone though they rely on news sources that describe the protesters as inherently dangerous and hampering business and free association. They seemingly ignore or discount other reports that these characterizations are exaggerated. In my research, I found that militia members were likely to exclusively trust sources like Fox News or even more conservative sites for their information, and recent data confirms that such sources may strongly shape viewers understanding of political and other events.

This view of protesters as violent is amplified by some back the blue members belief that the demonstrators are Marxist members of antifa, a mostly nonviolent leaderless collective movement generally opposing fascism.

For example, one Facebook group shared a video of Christopher David, the Navy veteran beaten by federal officers in Portland, talking about his experience. A commentator responded, The end of the video tell[s] the tale, hes going to raise money for [Black Lives Matter]! He is a liar he went there to stand with his commie comrades.

Scholarship on conservative groups argues that they use anti-communist language to cast political opponents as not real Americans who have thus have forfeited any protections U.S. citizens should have.

Some other back the blue members see hypocrisy in liberals, noting that few, if any, on the left objected when federal officers killed LaVoy Finicum during the 2016 standoff between federal officials and armed supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy during a land dispute elsewhere in Oregon.

There are sharing pages like one on a well-known conservative satire site that suggests the same Oregon authorities opposing federal officers tolerate violent behavior from protesters because of identity politics the idea that certain groups favored by liberals, in this case, Black people, are held to a different and more lax standard.

Several Facebook pages shared an image of a modified Gadsden flag, with a Black Lives Matter fist and promising we will tread as proof that Portland protesters would take away others rights, including the right to bear arms, if given the chance and thus do not deserve protection themselves. One comment in support of such a post read, I[m] glad to see Im not the only person happy to see these commies being snatched up and dragged away. Yes, I know that this could just as easily be turned around and that we could also be dragged away in broad daylight. But if they arent stopped now, and they do somehow manage to gain complete power, well get dragged away anyways. Better them than us, before its too late.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Federal intervention has not stopped the Portland protests from growing, but some analysts expect Trump to increase the response in an attempt to appeal to his supporters as the country heads into the November election. Many people fear that move would spark violence.

The back the blue militia members generally respect law and order enough to not fulfill their threats of violence or criminal action but the back the boog groups may not be so restrained. The back the blue groups may also act if federal action escalates, and members believe they are needed or useful to help defend the interests of average citizens.

Excerpt from:

Militias' warning of excessive federal power comes true but where are they? - The Conversation US

Ron Rivera will stand for anthem, but fully supports First Amendment rights – Yahoo Sports

When the regular season begins (and hopefully it will), the head coach of The Washington Football Team will be standing for The National Anthem. But Ron Rivera will not question the decision of players to use the anthem as a platform for protest.

Well, the truth of the matter is again, lets go back to our Constitution, to our Bill of Rights, the amendment, Rivera recently told TheAthletic.com. Lets go back to the oath of office to serve and protect. Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment. Theres a lot of people out there that support the Second Amendment vehemently. Well, if you support the Second Amendment vehemently, why wouldnt you support the first one, which is freedom of expression, freedom of speech? And thats all that is. Thats an extension of one of our unalienable rights, one of our God-given rights, one of the things written into the Constitution. So, again, lets at least applaud that. Lets celebrate that as well.

Rivera said hell stand because his father served in the military, his brother was a first responder, and his wifes family has a history of military service.

My dad had brothers that served in World War II, Rivera added. So to me, standing at attention is what Im going to do. Thats how Im going to honor them. I might kneel during the coin toss because I do support Black Lives Matter. I do support the movement to help correct the policing. But at the same time, I think everybody has to celebrate what the Constitution of the United States entitles us to do as Americans. Thats the thing that everybodys got to understand. We got to get past all this other stuff and quit making this a political fight. Theres nothing political about the Constitution. Its clear cut the Supreme Court rules on it, follow it, and then were supposed to defend it.

As the pandemic continues to consume so much of footballs focus, issues regarding the anthem will become front and center if/when games are played. Given the uncertainty created by COVID-19, criticism and controversy over players not standing for the anthem should be regarded as the proverbial good problem to have, because it will mean that games are being played.

Ron Rivera will stand for anthem, but fully supports First Amendment rights originally appeared on Pro Football Talk

Visit link:

Ron Rivera will stand for anthem, but fully supports First Amendment rights - Yahoo Sports

OICCI concerned over rollback on Companies Ordinance amendments – The Express Tribune

KARACHI:

The Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce and Industry (OICCI) has expressed concern over the abrupt rollback of amendments to the Companies Ordinance without any prior warning or consultation with key stakeholders.

Members of the OICCI have expressed surprise over the Companies (Second Amendment) Ordinance 2020, issued on July 7, 2020 in which some amendments promulgated as recently as May 2020 vide Companies (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 and appreciated by the OICCI, were rolled back without any prior warning or consultation with key stakeholders, wrote OICCI Secretary General Abdul Aleem in a letter to Adviser to Prime Minister on Finance Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh.

What has surprised OICCI members is that, against the norm and past practice, we were not consulted in respect of the second amendment, especially in relation to Section 452 parameters and learnt about reversals from the media, which obviously creates quite a stir in all the international chambers and headquarters of our member companies about the policymaking procedures in Pakistan, he said.

The key concern of foreign investors relates to reverting back to the original wording of Section 452 - Companies Global Register of Beneficial Ownership - which requires the declaration of all shareholdings in foreign companies, irrespective of the quantum being very minor, he said.

During discussions the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) had with the stakeholders in 2018, the OICCI had recommended that Section 452 should be deleted entirely from the Companies Act as the matter fell within the domain of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and there was no global precedence of such a law being included in the Companies Act.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 5th, 2020.

Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

Read the original:

OICCI concerned over rollback on Companies Ordinance amendments - The Express Tribune

Guns taken in 1st local case involving Virginia’s new ‘red flag’ law – The Winchester Star

WINCHESTER "What's the point in living?" "I just want to die."

Those were the comments police said a man made prior to having his guns taken in the first local case involving Virginias new "red flag" law. The case was adjudicated on Monday in Winchester Circuit Court.

The 45-year-old Winchester man made the suicidal threats while in possession of a pistol on July 17, according to police. He voluntarily surrendered three guns to police and will not be allowed to possess guns until at least Jan. 30. The man didn't attend the hearing on the "substantial risk order," according to Marc Abrams, Winchester commonwealth's attorney. The Winchester Star isn't naming the man because he hasn't been charged with a crime.

The new law, which went into effect July 1, is designed to keep guns away from potentially violent people. There are approximately 36,000 gun deaths annually in the U.S. including about 1,000 in Virginia, according to the Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which analyzed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics. That includes about 22,000 suicides and nearly 13,000 homicides.

Virginia and at least 16 states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws. Virginia's law says a person posing a "substantial risk of injury" to themselves or others can't buy, own or transport guns.

The red flag law and other gun control measures passed the Democratically-controlled General Assembly earlier this year in Richmond, despite fierce opposition from gun rights advocates. In January, about 22,000 gun owners protested the legislation at the state capitol. Resolutions in support of Second Amendment rights were also adopted by many Virginia localities, including Clarke and Frederick counties.

Critics of the red flag law said it could lead to guns being taken away unjustly.

In the local incident, police responded to an unnamed store after a clerk said a man in an "agitated state" in possession of an ammunition clip had left the store and was in the store parking lot rifling through the trunk of his vehicle, according to court documents. When police tried to secure the gun they said was in the trunk, they said the man became angry and made a series of suicidal remarks, including "I'm not going to say I'm going to kill myself, but I'll speed up death,""I'm on the fast track to death" and"I wake up crying every day." He was then taken to Winchester Medical Center.

Under the new law, the man was served with an emergency substantial risk order on July 18, which required him to turn in his guns to police. It gives authorities 14 days to hold a court hearing or return the guns. On July 20, the man turned in two semi-automatic pistols and a pump-action shotgun.

At the hearing, a judge issued a 180-day substantial risk order, which is the maximum time the guns can be held. The order can either expire, allowing the guns to be returned, or authorities can hold another hearing and try to keep them.

Abrams said he understands some Second Amendment supporters dislike the law, but the case met the legal standard for taking the guns. "We'll have to see if it's effective," he said.

View post:

Guns taken in 1st local case involving Virginia's new 'red flag' law - The Winchester Star

Letter to the editor: Traczyk will defend conservative principles – The Winchester Star

There are times in each of our lives when one must stop and consider what matters most to you. This has never been more relevant than in the current environment we find ourselves in as a country.

For my family and I, there is nothing more important than God, family, and country. In looking at recent events in this country, it has become readily apparent that many elected individuals have forgotten the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It is truly disheartening the stance many have taken in regards to the "People's Rights" or Bill of Rights and specifically the Second Amendment.

We, the residents of the 29th District, have an opportunity to send someone to Richmond who I have known to be willing to take a stand in defending our Constitutional rights. That man is Richard Traczyk. It has been an honor to work with Mr. Traczyk in numerous capacities over the past 15 years and it has been refreshing to see him stand for many of the same conservative principles I cherish which include being a strong supporter of the Constitution, pro-life, and family initiatives.

Mr. Traczyk needs your help to make it to Richmond. On Saturday, August 8th, there will be a Firehouse Primary at the Millwood Fire Station. I encourage you to check out Mr. Traczyk's achievements and support him with your vote in the Republican Primary.

Shawn Graber

Frederick County Board of Supervisors, Back Creek District representative

Read more from the original source:

Letter to the editor: Traczyk will defend conservative principles - The Winchester Star

Top Prosecutor Kim Gardner Has Faced Racism and Death Threats. Now She Faces Reelection. – Mother Jones

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

In July, St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner revealed that she had found a terrifying note on her car. I hope you hang from a tree, it read.

Gardner, the first Black woman to serve as circuit attorney in St. Louis, was elected four years ago after pledging to make the criminal justice system more fair for people of color. (Like a district attorney, a circuit attorney is a chief prosecutor for a particular jurisdiction.) While in office, she has faced incredible pushback. Most recently, President Trump objected when she filed criminal charges against a white couple who pointed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters walking through their gated community in June; he told the conservative Townhall Media that Gardners decision to prosecute them was a disgrace.

The hate mail quickly flooded her inbox. It is YOU who are the racist, unfairly targeting white McCloskeys for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, someone emailed her, according to the Washington Post, referring to the gun-toting couple. U really need to be run out of town you black b-!

On Tuesday, Gardner is up for reelection. In the primary, she faces Mary Pat Carl, a white prosecutor who used to work in the same office but resigned from that post in 2017 after Gardner became circuit attorney. In some ways, the race will be a test of whether Gardners reformist bona fides can withstand the harsh backlash from Republicans, who have questioned her at every turnoffering a stark reminder of the double standards that progressive Black women often face when theyre elected as district attorneys or circuit attorneys.

Historically, a chief prosecutors decision on a case is the last word. People who hold this title have immense discretion to choose whom to charge with crimes, and what types of crimes to charge them with. But in Gardners case, politicians and courts have pushed back against her power again and again. After she was elected, a police union spokesperson described her as a menace who needed to be removed from office by force or by choice. When Gardners office investigated then-Gov. Eric Greitens over allegations of sexual misconduct in 2018, the police petitioned a court to appoint a special prosecutor who charged one of her investigators with perjury and got a search warrant to seize the server with her offices emails. (Gardner later dropped the charges against the governor, who resigned.) This year, state lawmakers tried to pass a bill transferring some of Gardners authority to the states Republican attorney general.

In January, Gardner filed a lawsuit accusing her city of a racially motivated conspiracy to push her out of office and block her attempts to make the legal system fairer for minorities. Other Black women prosecutors from around the country flew to St. Louis to support her, saying she faced an unprecedented campaign by the citys corrupt and racist political establishment to destroy her.The prosecutorsincluding Orlandos Aramis Ayala, Baltimores Marilyn Mosby, and Bostons Rachael Rollinscould understand what Gardner was going through. Theyd seen their own power questioned in unusual ways too, as Ive previously reported:

In Orlando, Aramis Ayala, the first Black district attorney in Florida, saw some of her powers removed by the governor in 2017 after she decided to stop seeking the death penalty. Then-Gov. Rick Scott made the unusual decision to issue an executive order preventing her office from handling a case in its jurisdiction involving a murdered police officer; he assigned it and 22 other capital cases to a prosecutor in another county instead. A month later, Aramis received a noose in the mail. In September, Rachael Rollins, Bostons first elected Black woman prosecutor, asked a court to dismiss the charges against nonviolent protesters who opposed a straight pride parade; a local judge refused

After Marilyn Mosby, a Black chief prosecutor in Baltimore, flew to St. Louis in a show of support for Gardners lawsuit, she got a voicemail from a caller in Illinois who accused her of hating police and white people. If wed known you all were gonna be this much fucking trouble we wouldve picked our own fucking cotton, the caller said.Mosby had been sued by police after she tried to prosecute officers for the death of Freddie Gray, who fell into a coma in a police van in 2015. Filing a lawsuit against a prosecutor is essentially unheard of, according to the Marshall Project, a criminal justice-focused news organization. A judge let the suit proceed; the Supreme Court later sided with Mosby

A prosecutors discretion is something thats usually considered sacred, says [Jamila] Hodge [a former federal prosecutor who now works at the Vera Institute of Justice]. Its only when those decisions are being made by Black women in this role, and when theyre done to the benefit of populations who have been traditionally marginalized and harmed by the system, that now prosecutions discretion is a problem.

Gardner filed charges on July 20 against the white couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who say they pointed their guns at Black Lives Matter protesters because they feared for their lives and property. The couplewho have a history of suing neighbors, family members, and employers over various disputesclaimed the protesters damaged a gate and threatened their safety. But video obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch showed protesters walking peacefully through an open gate, and keeping their distance on the sidewalk as they moved past the house. The marchers admitted to trespassing by entering the gated community, private land, on their way to the mayors house, but denied damaging any property.

It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, Gardner said in a statement when she charged the couple with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony. And while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis, she added. Gardner said she would not seek prison time against the McCloskeys if they were convicted, but would encourage a court to put them into a diversion program, such as community service.

Trump isnt the only politician who publicly criticized Gardner for her decision to prosecute the couple. We will not allow law-abiding citizens to be targeted for exercising their constitutional rights to carry firearms, tweeted Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, who vowed to pardon the McCloskeys if they were convicted. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt also posted a video on Twitter condemning Gardner, and filed a brief to the court attempting to get her case against the couple dismissed. US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), wrote that Gardners decision to prosecute was an unacceptable abuse of power and asked the Justice Department to investigate her. And the McCloskeys filed a motion attempting to disqualify her from their case because she referenced them in a campaign email seeking donations for her reelection.

Dozens of progressive prosecutors around the country have come to Gardners defense.They include Aramis, Mosby, and Rollins, along with Chicagos Kim Foxx, San Franciscos Chesa Boudin, and Philadelphias Larry Krasner. In an open letter released on July 22, they wrote that they had deep concerns about the shameful, aggressive, and blatantly political attacks on Gardner over the McCloskey investigation. It is up to Missouri law and a jury composed of the people of St. Louis to determine whether the McCloskeys should be held criminally responsible for their actions, not a handful of politicians who neither live nor vote in that jurisdiction and, in some cases, do not even have any prosecution or law enforcement experience, the prosecutors wrote.

The disturbing intervention in this local case is reflective of a broader, dangerous pattern that we have seen far too often in recent years, they added, referring to politicians who criticized or tried to intervene in other reformist prosecutors decisions to charge certain crimes or, more often, to not charge minor nonviolent offenses. These attacks have ignored the fact that the local prosecutors were elected with a mandate from their communities to build a more effective and equitable justice system and that their decisions are squarely within the purview of the job they were duly elected to carry out.

Even Gardners opponent in Tuesdays primary election, prosecutor Mary Pat Carl has condemned the political attacks against Gardner over the McCloskey case. These racist attacks and threats against my opponent and #women of color in general, must stop, Carl tweeted last week. We will not make St. Louis safer by tearing others down. But Carl,who ran unsuccessfully against Gardner four years ago, has criticized her opponent for being ineffective and lacking competence; for a high turnover rate among attorneys in the office; for a decrease in the rate of trials that lead to a conviction; and for straining relations between the prosecutors office and the police. I think you can hold the police accountable, without going to war with the police, Carl told local radio station KMOX. She also blasted Gardner for not properly reporting some campaign contributions and flights.

Meanwhile, some reform-minded activists have criticized the circuit attorney for not being progressive enough. But she has racked up several notable Democratic endorsements, including from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who commended her for significantly reducing the citys jail population without increasing overall crime, and for declining to rely on the testimony of police officers accused of misconduct.

Gardner, for her part, says the racist attacks and death threats against her got worse after Trump and other Republicans tried to intervene in her case against the McCloskeys. Its been disheartening, she told CNN. This is not about a Second Amendment right, she added later in the interview. This is about an elected prosecutor doing their job, like they do everyday without fanfare or any political pandering thats going on, and evaluating criminal activity in their jurisdiction.

See the original post:

Top Prosecutor Kim Gardner Has Faced Racism and Death Threats. Now She Faces Reelection. - Mother Jones

Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democrats Conspiracy Theorist and Hatchet Man against the Rule of Law – National Review

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Washington, D.C., September 27, 2018(Tom Williams/Pool via Reuters)Whitehouses conspiratorial bent runs deep.

When Democrats want to threaten or delegitimize the federal judiciary, they know whom to call first: Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island senator The Hill calls the Democratic Partys leading voice on the courts. That voice is one of paranoia, conspiracy theories, threats, lies, smears, and hypocrisy.

Senator Whitehouses escalating campaign against an independent judiciary reached its highest fever pitch last August, when he and four other Democratic senators filed an unprecedented amicus brief with the Supreme Court bluntly threatening to restructure the Court if it did not stop issuing conservative decisions, including enforcing the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics. Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

This was an open threat of Court-packing tied directly to the outcomes of particular cases. Whitehouse filed a brief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, a case in which a New York City law on transportation of firearms so obviously violated the Second Amendment that both the state and city in New York! amended the law after the case was filed. The Court has laid down rules in past cases to stop localities from avoiding adverse decisions in this fashion, and the challengers argued that the new laws were still unduly restrictive of their rights. In New York State Rifle & Pistol, however, the Court issued a per curiam opinion reportedly written by Justice Kavanaugh that backed away from deciding the merits, treating the case as moot. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch blasted the outcome, and Kavanaugh himself wrote a separate opinion agreeing with Alitos concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying [DC v.] Heller and McDonald [v. Chicago]. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

That didnt happen. According to reports from anonymous leakers to CNNs Joan Biskupic, the outcome in New York State Rifle & Pistol and the failure to hear any more Second Amendment cases was the direct result of Chief Justice Roberts hesitancy to take stands on the issue:

CNN has learned that resolution of that case took many twists and multiple draft opinions. Guided by Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh crafted much of what turned out to be an unsigned per curiam opinion. . . . It takes four votes to accept a case and five to rule on it, and sources have told CNN that the justices on the right did not believe they could depend on a fifth vote from Roberts, who had in 2008 and 2010 voted for milestone gun-rights rulings but more recently seemed to balk at the fractious issue.

Roberts caving to threats to the Court as an institution, and to its public legitimacy, is by now a sadly familiar spectacle. Whitehouse knew exactly what he was doing, it worked, and he will do it again.

Rejecting the legitimacy of any court that issues a ruling he dislikes as hopelessly corrupt is standard operating procedure for Whitehouse. This op-ed is typical of Whitehouses system-is-rigged rhetoric:

What if one team spent years and millions of dollars to capture the referees, so the refs could declare that team the winner whenever they fell short on the field? If you were on the other team, youd cry foul. Youd ask: Hey, when did the law become a team sport, too?

. . . Americans can smell a rat. The pattern is too distinct to ignore. We warned the court of polls showing that the publics faith in the courts independence is eroding.

Typically of people who traffic in this sort of paranoia, Whitehouse gets even uglier after a decision does not go his way. The legal saga of Michael Flynn has faced its own torturous history, with a panel of the D.C. Circuit ordering the dismissal of the case, followed by the en banc Circuit recently deciding to rehear that dismissal. There are serious reasons why the Justice Department was right to abandon the Flynn prosecution, and difficult questions about when courts can and should demand the continued enforcement of a guilty plea when the prosecution itself wants to drop it. But for Whitehouse, channeling Donald Trumps so-called judge rhetoric, the only possible explanation for an adverse ruling is a dark conspiracy; thus, he tweeted, Judge Rao delivers the coverup she was put on the court for, and ranted about how flagrant Judge Raos decision is, covering up Flynn scandal. Where you see Neomi Rao, tweeted Whitehouse, you can expect a lot of Trumpy dirt to follow. Shes a cartoon of a fake judge.

Neomi Rao is, of course, the daughter of Indian immigrants and a Senate-confirmed federal-appeals judge with a stellar resume: graduate of Yale and the University of Chicago Law School, on the law review, Supreme Court clerk, white-shoe law firm, law professor, co-chair of an American Bar Association committee. But to Whitehouse, a single ruling he doesnt like means Judge goes in scare quotes. Whitehouses particular crusade to smear Reo is longstanding. In another case, he tweeted that she was a @FedSoc stooge . . . This is why Trump is packing the courts with political hacks. If there were more on this panel, theyd have covered up for him.

During her confirmation hearings, Whitehouse launched an intemperate and false attack on an academic research center Reo founded, claiming that it was bankrolled, bought and paid for by his favorite Emmanuel Goldsteins: the Koch brothers and the Federalist Society. Adam White detailed at length why Whitehouses antics were beneath the dignity of the Senate and a dangerous threat to democratic discourse and academic inquiry:

Whitehouses conspiracy theory seems to be twofold: that Neomi was wrong when she disclaimed these particular funders (shes not wrong), and that the Centers work is dictated by those who have donated money to it (its not). . . . Whitehouses persistently wrong assertions seem to parrot press coverage of the Koch Foundations and anonymous donors combined $30 million donation [to the law school, not the center] in 2016. Those press accounts, in turn, drew the wrong conclusions from university documents released under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

As the FOIAd documents show, the school earmarked all $30 million for student scholarships. The documents further show that school officials noted thepossibilitythat the school might increase support for research programs like the Center for the Study of the Administrative State. (See, e.g.,pp. 285286 of this big PDF file from the FOIA results.)

But that hypothetical possibility never came to pass because, in actual reality,the Center succeeded in fully funding itself through the support of other foundations and private donors, which is why Judge Rao repeatedly stated during her confirmation process that the Center never received funding from the Koch Foundation or the anonymous donor. (Emphasis in original)

Whitehouses conspiratorial bent runs deep. As Carrie Severino, who has covered his jeremiads at length, has noted:

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse routinely accuses those he disagrees with, including the justices he calls theRoberts Five,of being corrupted by money. In January 2019, he wrote Chief Justice Roberts criticizing the Court for accepting amicus briefs from special interest groups that fail to disclose their donors and adding that a legislative solution may in order if the practice continues. Whitehouses selective outrage is darkly comical when we consider thatthe senator himselfhas filed amicus briefs siding with parties and attorneys who donated to him. Or when we consider theattempt to silencethe Federalist Society by the Committee on Codes of Conduct, a member of which is Whitehouses friend and former donor, John McConnell, now a district judge thanks to the senators efforts.

In launching a witch-hunting congressional probe into the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, Whitehouse spun a fantastical web for the Washington Posts Paul Waldman:

Leo, the senators letter says, is at the center of a complex network of nonprofit groups and shell entities funded largely by anonymous donors.. . . First, Whitehouse says, Supreme Court judges are selected by the Federalist Society. But, crucially, Whitehouse adds that this group also has a huge dark money operation behind it. . . . But as Whitehouse asserts, the Federalist Society doesnt just produce Supreme Court justices: These days it chooses them. When he ran for president, Donald Trump put out a list of 25 people hed consider for the court; 24 of them either were Federalist Society members or had ties to it. Leo was advising Trump then as now, providing him with names to put on not just the Supreme Court but appellate and district courts as well.

Of course, to anyone remotely familiar with how the Federalist Society works, this completely skips over the distinction between the organization which hosts debates and conferences and does not (unlike the American Bar Association) even take positions on public issues and Leonard Leo, who has since moved on to his own political operation. The notion that the Federalist Society as an organization actually selects judicial nominees is fiction. The fact that the judges on Trumps list were mostly Federalist Society members is unsurprising, given how many conservative lawyers and judges belong to the group. Meanwhile, Whitehouse has been lending cover to openly biased efforts to force judges out of the Federalist Society, but not the ABA. As usual, what would be utterly unremarkable among liberals is cast as a shadowy cabal by Whitehouse. When the plan was scrapped last week, Ben Sasse snarked, Senator Whitehouse can hyperventilate about the Illuminati all he wants.

Its not just the Federalist Society; one district court nominee, Peter Phipps, was grilled by Whitehouse over his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a 140-year-old fraternal organization of Catholic men around the world dedicated to charitable activities and the faith. Whitehouse demanded that Phipps answer questions such as Must you swear an oath in order to join this organization? If so, what is that oath? He asked another nominee about being an Anglican, given that his church believes marriage to be a life-long union of husband and wife intended for the procreation and nurture of godly children and entailing God-given roles of father and mother. How deep the conspiracy runs! I understand there is even a book such churches circulate that carries these same messages.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, Whitehouse received one of the wackier allegations against Kavanaugh, from a Rhode Island man peddling a claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman aboard a Newport boat in 1985. The man later apologized for the made-up story: Everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake, the man said. When Whitehouse received the charge, he referred it (appropriately) to the FBI, but he didnt stop there: He also referred the man to a reporter, then had the effrontery to act offended when the mans name became public. Instead of apologizing for a patently false smear of Kavanaugh, Whitehouse demanded that Republicans apologize to the false accuser. And Whitehouse has vowed to reopen the Kavanaugh circus: As soon as Democrats get gavels, were going to want to get to the bottom of this.

Conspiratorial musings about dark money and secret conspiracies are also a regular motif for Whitehouse even outside the judicial area. In 2016, he took to the Senate floor with a comically Byzantine map of a so-called conspiracy to spread climate denial:

As Occupy.com glowingly described the theory of Whitehouse and his co-sponsors, their

resolution condemns what they are calling the #WebOfDenial interconnected groups funded by the Koch brothers, major fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, identity-scrubbing groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, and their allies developed and executed a massive campaign to deceive the public about climate change to halt climate action and protect their bottom lines.

By now, this should all sound familiar. With a flourish recognizable to anyone who has ever watched a YouTube expos of a conspiracy, Whitehouse concluded:

Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Locke . . . these are great names put on the front of very shady, Koch-funded front groups in the #WebOfDenial. And the organizations share several common features. First, they all propagate what by any reasonable scientific standard is preposterous nonsense, and masquerade it as science and independent opinion. Second, they all get massive funding from fossil-fuel interests, and line up always, obediently, with those interests. Third, they interlock. The interlocking is almost too complicated to track, in staff, in board members, in funding sources. But it all traces back to fossil-fuel money.

Other times, Whitehouse just goes straight to his imagination. In pushing the theory in early 2017 that Jeff Sessions was some sort of bag man for collusion with Russia, Whitehouse told CNN:

You can imagine a set of circumstances in which the Trump campaign gave him talking points [and] he was a message boy for them. . . . There was a content related to the relations between U.S.A. and Russia, favorable to Russia that would have encouraged them to support the Trump campaign. And then he returned back to the Trump campaign and said, Done it, you know, mission accomplished here,. . . And if that were the case it would be really, really hard to believe that he didnt remember that.

You can imagine. This is straight-up fiction, accusing the attorney general of the United States of conspiring with the Russian government, on national television, without evidence. All that was missing for the full Joe McCarthy was waving a piece of paper and claiming there were names written on it.

Whitehouses dire warnings about Captured Courts: The GOPs Big Money Assault on the Constitution, Judiciary and Rule of Law apparently dont apply to his own conduct, including the very groups he recruits to his causes:

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has repeatedly warned against the dangers of dark-money political groups taking millions of donations from special interest groups, arguing, when pressed, that hes equally concerned about both liberal and conservative groups that dont disclose their donors. But the Rhode Island senator apparently sees no contradiction in giving speeches to liberal groups that accept money from secret Democratic donors, as he did last week, telling the audience that GOP dark money is undermining the U.S. judiciary and the rule of law. Additionally, Whitehouse told a reporter last year he would accept donations from liberal dark-money groups.

Whitehouses shallow, transparent hypocrisy is hardly limited to money. He may rail at nominees who belong to churches and charitable organizations, but Whitehouse himself in 2017 refused to leave his membership in an all-white beach club:

I think it would be nice if they (Baileys Beach Club) changed a little bit, but its not my position Whitehouse told Nagle. When asked if he would pressure the club to push for diversity at the all-white club], Whitehouse said, I will take that up privately.

The beach club had been under scrutiny for years, and Whitehouse had promised in 2006 to quit it, so this was no ambush.

In October 2019, he tweeted about Trump and some of his allies and advisers, I have a theory: some old white men in politics fear irrelevance as death, and will do anything for relevance taking whatever deal with the devil is necessary. Imagining again. Old white men shouldnt cling to power, because they are old, white, and male? Funny, this from the same Sheldon Whitehouse who, at age 62 in 2018, faced a female primary challenger and did not step aside; he opposed her, and defeated her.

None of Whitehouses antics meet with disapproval from Democrats. To the contrary, Democratic Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer told The Hill, I cant say enough about Sen. Whitehouse and his relentless pursuit of this area of captured courts. That speaks volumes.

Continued here:

Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democrats Conspiracy Theorist and Hatchet Man against the Rule of Law - National Review

Probably the most important election in living memory – Big Jolly Times – Big Jolly Times

As I type this it is three months until what is almost certainly the most important presidential election in living memory. OK, I know that sort of thing gets said a lot. It is mostly bombast and political rhetoric. This time around it isnt.

Donald Trump is far from perfect. That being said I honestly believe he is a well-meaning patriot who wants to do the right thing and is not always sure exactly what that is or how to go about it. He is also beset by a near-perfect storm of problems. Covid-19. The economic contraction caused by our governments reaction to Covid-19. A never-ending string of moronic attacks, believed by some, asserting that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. (He had to have cheated or he could never have beaten Hillary, right?) A serious ongoing attempt by anarchists and other hard-core radicals as well as never-Trumpers to destroy Trump, the American government and society by piggy-backing on some completely legit political unrest caused by a small number of outrageous incidents of police misconduct.

Trumps opponent, Joe Biden, is a senile sock puppet. Even in highly controlled settings, from his basement reading off of a script, or in tightly managed pesudo-press conferences the man often does not know what year it is or even what city he is in, and that is when he is in his own home town. He has either drunk the Kool-Aid and become a true believer or is so brain-burnt that he doesnt realize, or doesnt care, that he has moved from being a moderate liberal Democrat to being a hard-core leftist mouthpiece.

If, due to some gross mischance he does get elected, what is going to happen? He has made conflicting statements on his stance towards defunding the police. He either really believes the ChiComs are nice guys or he is so desperate to keep his son out of the slammer he will say anything to cover up his sons criminal activity, aided and abetted by Senile Joe himself and the Obama administration. He wants to raise every tax on the books and enact some new ones, close down the schools and the churches by government decree, force people to wear face masks anytime they are out of their house and destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution. (Remember who he said he was putting in charge of his administrations Second Amendment policy? Beto ORourke. Mr. Hell yes we are coming for the AR-15s. Thats the guy.). By the way, how does the thought of Barack Obama, or Michelle Obama, or both of them, on the Supreme Court strike you?

Several weeks ago he PROMISED to put a woman, probably a woman of color, on the ticket with him. He is apparently actually going to do it, probably because the Blacks in his circle will not let him forget about it. It doesnt matter if she is competent or even honest, merely that she have the right skin tone. We should find out this week who is getting the prize.

Four years ago I opined that I thought Hillary would probably win, but also that there would be a very large and possibly decisive closet Trump vote. I was at least half right. It may be even bigger this time around. The Cancel Culture is pissing off a lot of moderates. That is where elections are won, in the middle.

I did not vote for either Hillary or Trump last time. I live in CA. If I thought that Trump had a chance of winning CA I probably would have voted for him simply because I detest Hillary so much. This time around I will likely vote for him if for no other reason than to do my small part to screw up the stats.

Bob Walsh is a California resident and retired from theState of Ca. Dept. of Corrections.

View original post here:

Probably the most important election in living memory - Big Jolly Times - Big Jolly Times

Meet the candidates for Michigans 58th District House of Representatives seat – The Hillsdale Daily News

HILLSDALE Whether Hillsdale and Branch County voters head to the polls for Michigans Aug. 4, 2020 Primary Election or vote by mail, they wont be picking only local or federal candidates.

Theyll also be casting a vote for someone to replace third-term state Rep. Eric Leutheuser, whose current term of office expires Dec. 31, 2020.

With no incumbent candidate seeking reelection, the 58th District primary has become a hotly-contested race on the Republican side. In total, five candidates, four Republicans and one Democrat, have declared for the office.

Candidates vying for the Republican nomination have spent more than $75,000 in the run-up to the Aug. 4 election, making it one of the most expensive primary races since the current district boundaries were redrawn in 1992.

Here is a brief rundown of the five candidates who will appear on the ballot, presented in alphabetical order by last name.

Tamara Barnes

Barnes, a 44-year-old public historian from Coldwater, is running unopposed on the Democratic ticket. The only Democrat in the entire field, she has a clear route to clinching the Democratic nomination for the second time in a row.

Though a presumptive longshot, given Hillsdale and Branch Counties electoral history, Barnes is hoping to wage an unconventional campaign as a change candidate in an extremely red-leaning District. A self-described progressive Democrat, Barnes says she wants to clean up corruption in state government and craft policies that benefit a majority of citizens.

"I believe Republican-led legislation at the state level has been a catastrophic failure for most people in Hillsdale and Branch counties," she said. "Workers continue to be paid unfair wages, corporations continue to receive enormous subsidies in the name of economic development, public schools continue to be critically underfunded, proposed cuts to Medicaid continue to put our most vulnerable citizens at risk and our legislators continue to take money from special interest groups in exchange for favors."

Barness platform includes increasing access to quality healthcare, addressing racial and economic inequities in the 58th District and increasing funding for public schools. She supports raising the states minimum wage and expanding Medicaid via the Healthy Michigan Plan (Affordable Care Act) as a placeholder for an eventual universal medical care system.

Barnes, who has spent her entire career working for non-profit organizations, says her research experience and coalition-building skills enable her to consider multiple viewpoints and implement workable solutions for challenging problems. She says those traits make her well-suited for the office of state representative.

"I believe that I am the only candidate who is concerned with people in this district who struggle those making less than a living wage and those who have health issues and remain underinsured," she said.

Barnes has been endorsed by the Branch County Democratic Party and Hillsdale County Democratic Party.

The Democratic nominee two years ago, Barnes was defeated by incumbent Republican state Rep. Eric Leutheuser in the November 2018 general election.

Barnes possesses a Master of Arts in museum studies from State University of New Yorks Cooperstown Graduate Program and a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Western Michigan University.

Andrew Fink

Fink, a 35-year-old attorney from Hillsdale and father of five, announced his candidacy last November at a Hillsdale County Republican Party meeting. A former U.S. Marine Judge Advocate, he is the only candidate running with a military service background.

A Hillsdale College graduate and practicing attorney since 2014, Fink moved back to Hillsdale from Ypsilanti in 2017 to open a branch of his familys law firm, Fink and Fink, PLLC. He was also recently Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkeys district director in Hillsdale County. Fink says the current political climate prompted him to run out of a sense of duty.

"I'm running because the national liberal movement Bernie Sanders' socialism, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, and Nancy Pelosi's distrust of American citizens are here in Michigan, too," he said. "As the father of five children, a Marine Corps veteran, and a constitutional law attorney, I believe it's my duty to defend our Constitution and American way of life against those who would throw it all away."

Finks platform includes advocating for fiscally-responsible small government, defending the rights of parents to have choices about their kids education, and supporting Second Amendment and pro-life causes. He has also taken a strong stance on reigning in the executive branchs power in Michigan.

Having worked at all levels of government, ranging from the local to federal level, Fink says his experience handling a wide scope of legal issues sets him apart from other candidates.

"I have the experience and abilities to be a conservative leader in the legislature from day one," he said. "Being a Marine officer, constitutional law attorney who has sued Governor Whitmer for her shut down orders, recipient of a scholarship from the National Rifle Association to study politics at Hillsdale College, and a board member of the Michigan Lawyers chapter of the Federalist Society, I am more ready to get in the fight on day one to help restore our economy, ensure public safety, and stop our overreaching governor in her tracks."

Since his campaigns launch, Fink has raised more than $44,000 more than any other Democratic or Republican candidate.

Fink is the only candidate in the race endorsed by Right to Life of Michigan. He has also received endorsements from state Sen. Mike Shirkey, former state Rep. Ken Kurtz, the Police Officers Association of Michigan, Citizens for Traditional Values and local business owners Bob Galloway and Dave Haylett among others.

Fink possesses a Juris Doctorate from the University of Michigan Law School and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Hillsdale College.

Adam Stockford

The 40-year-old mayor of Hillsdale announced his bid for office last October, becoming the first Republican candidate to do so. The first-term mayor, who assumed office in Nov. 2017, is the only candidate in the race currently holding an elected office.

As an elected official whose day-job is in workforce development, Stockford has argued he has more to offer than any other candidate when it comes to understanding local issues and the concerns of 58th District residents, billing himself as both pragmatic and effective in representing his constituents.

"Im running for office because our area deserves a representative that understands the unique interests of this district," Stockford said. "The 58th isnt like any other district, and as the mayor of one of the two major cities and a businessman whos worked with most of the major industries in the district, I have a unique insight into the needs of the people of this area."

Stockfords platform involves increasing revenue sharing for local governments, reforming Michigans grant system, and seeing that rural communities arent left out when it comes to road and infrastructure repair. He is also a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, has endorsed constitutional carry legislation, and identifies as pro-life.

Stockford says his experience as a city councilor and mayor, as well as his blue-collar background, sets himself apart from his opponents.

"My experience in local government and in workforce development gives me the best mix of business and politics of any candidate," he said. "Ive also worked a plethora of blue-collar jobs, as a carpet installer and a factory worker, and I think if youre going to make decisions that affect the people of this district, you should walk a mile in their shoes."

Stockford has no support from PACs, but has received personal endorsements from several prominent figures including Charles Steele, Hillsdale Colleges Chairman of Economics, Business and Accounting, Hillsdale College politics professor Mickey Craig and Union City Village Manager and Police Chief Chris Matthis among others.

Andy Welden

Welden, 68, a retired farmer from Jonesville, became the fourth Republican candidate to jump into the 58th District race when he formally declared his bid for office in May. Despite his late entry into the race, his campaign raised $21,895 in the three months since its launch, the second-highest haul of any candidate.

The only candidate from either party with a background in agriculture, Welden, who served as the principal and owner of Welden Farms in Jonesville for 35 years, has made his knowledge of farming and nearly two decades of experience in township and county government the centerpiece of his campaign, billing himself as a trusted neighbor and dedicated public servant.

"Im running to represent the residents and their priorities," Welden said. "I believe I am capable of doing this well."

Weldens platform involves giving agriculture a larger voice in Lansing and using his leadership experience to fight for a better quality of life for Branch and Hillsdale County residents. A lifelong NRA member, Welden supports the Second Amendment. He also identifies as pro-life.

A Jonesville High School alumnus hailing from a multi-generation farming family, Welden says he believes hes the best candidate for the job because of his local roots and deep-seeded passion for service.

Welden has been endorsed by the Michigan Corn Growers Associations Friends of Corn PAC and the Michigan Association of Counties MACPAC, but has not taken any contributions from any political action committees.

Welden possesses an Associates degree from Michigan State University.

Daren Wiseley

Wiseley, a real estate agent from Osseo and Indiana University law school graduate, was the third Republican to enter the race, announcing his candidacy last December. At 28 years old, he is the youngest candidate seeking the 58th District seat.

The recent law school graduate, who has never held a public office, but worked for the Hillsdale County Prosecutors Office, says that his inaugural campaign is less about experience and more about the ideological lens he says he will apply to decision-making if elected. Wiseley has used his political-outsider status as one of his main selling points in appealing to voters.

"The 58th District is a heavy red district, and I think the people here deserve not just a Republican, but a conservative one that actually reflects their values," he said. "I'm tired of moderate, establishment Republicans not fighting for the best interests of our district, but instead serving the interests of the lobbyists and kowtowing to the Left I'm running to give our district someone willing to take that hard stand and actually fight for tough issues such as: protecting life, defending gun rights, and opposing corporate welfare to support the hard-working people of this district and our great small businesses."

Wiseleys platform includes reducing taxes and cutting regulations on a state level, as well as fighting for a balanced state budget. The pro-Second Amendment candidate says he will oppose any red flag laws and advocate for constitutional carry legislation. He also opposes taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.

"I'm a principled conservative who shares the commonsense values of my hometown community," he said. "Voters always say they want a conservative fighter and I've put the work in to give them that choice."

Wiseley has been endorsed by Michigan Trump Republicans and Young Americans for Liberty, two conservative grassroots organizations.

Wiseley possesses a Juris Doctorate from Indiana University-Bloomingtons Maurer School of law and completed his undergraduate studies at Indiana Institute of Technology (Indiana Tech).

Read more:

Meet the candidates for Michigans 58th District House of Representatives seat - The Hillsdale Daily News