Where's the Tyranny Requiring Ownership of an AK-15?

The tyranny that our founding fathers feared, and the reasoning behind the well-ordered militia, had to do with fear of monarchy.  At the time the constitution was drafted, after more than a decade of living under the Articles of Confederation, the possibilities existing for those who lived in the thirteen colonies that had just won their independence from Britain, to be returned to what they considered "tyrannical" rule, were very real.  All of the other major powers who controlled land in North America were monarchies.  Britain, France and Spain for the most part dominated the political scene and all of them were ruled by royal families.  So each of the colonies had their militia which, when they weren't quarreling with each other, were put in place to fight European tyranny. 

If there's still a fear of "tyranny" taking over in America, it would be reasonable for the term to be defined prior to making that determination.  For right wingers, it means anything that is done any time the left is in control of the government.  That's not real tyranny, since there isn't anything specific they can point to that comes close to the definition of the term but those who intend to use the term for their own political advantage don't let that little bump in the road slow them down.  Looking at real tyranny, in its whole context, including what the founding fathers believed it was, and what it means now, debunks the right's perspective.  

Timothy Snyder, in his book On Tyranny:  Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, and who is a leading expert on the subject, says, "The founding fathers tried to protect us from the threat they knew, the tyranny that overcame ancient democracy. Today, our political order faces new threats, not unlike the totalitarianism of the twentieth century.  We are no wiser than Europeans who saw democracy yield to Fascism, Nazism or communism.  Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience."  

What is Tyranny to the Extremists on the Right? 

They keep talking about it like it's real.  

Let's put this in perspective.  First of all, making a comparison to twentieth century European totalitarianism requires having knowledge of exactly what that was.  We know the names and where it came from, Fascism, which took root in Italy under Benito Mussolini, Nazism in Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet-style communism under Lenin and Stalin.  They were different economic and political systems, but they were all tyrannical in their demands of total loyalty to the state and total absence of personal liberty, individual rights and freedoms.  Even those who were close to the dictators themselves, and who were loyal supporters did not have any liberty of conscience, and were never free to express any view that might have remotely been considered disloyal. 

Perhaps that's why the use of the term "fascist" has been applied to Trumpism.  There are multiple similarities in any political movement where individual conscience must be surrendered in exchange for loyalty to the leader. 

So what kind of "tyranny" are right wingers in this country experiencing that can be compared with twentieth century European totalitarianism, which is how the word "tyranny" is currently defined? 

Yes, that is the sound of crickets chirping in the dead silence that follows that question.  That's because there is no tyranny, by definition, that is being experienced in America today. None.  And as long as we have a representative democracy established by the constitution, there is no tyranny.  

Losing an Election is not Tyranny

Holding free and fair elections is actually the primary means by which tyranny is defeated.  In our constitutional democracy, political power comes from the people.  And elections are the primary means by which the people exercise their power.  

The stonewalling, grid-locked, uncompromising partisan stance that the Republican party has taken over the past thirty years is detrimental to the function of a democratic government.  The GOP is controlled by extremists, pushed by propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdock via Tucker Carlson, and Steve Bannon, who use their influence to threaten politicians that don't comply or support their agenda.  There is a real threat of tyranny when those who control the wealth are able to use it as a means of subverting the will of the people.  There is not any recognition, among those who push this political view, of the rights of "liberals" who don't share their perspective.  

The closest America has come to tyranny since the Civil War occurred January 6th, 2021, when a mob organized by Trump tried to subvert legitimate election results to stay in power.  Had that succeeded, we'd have had real tyranny.  I believe our constitution is still strong enough, and the will of the people still powerful enough, in spite of Republican stonewalling, to have prevented that from ever being put in place, even if the disruptions had succeeded, because there are plenty of other safeguards in place to prevent that kind of subversive act from succeeding.  The founding fathers wanted to make sure there was no turning back.  

The 2020 election wasn't stolen.  Not a single allegation of voter fraud has been proven by the accusers.  In fact, what has actually happened, as a wave of "auditors" with no credentials descended on battleground states to look for fraud and waste millions of taxpayer dollars, is that the results of the election were confirmed.  In some cases, these "auditors" were fronts for the Trump campaign, such as the "Cyber Ninjas" in Arizona, who claimed to be able to detect bamboo fragments in the paper of ballots alleged to have come from China, one of the crazier conspiracy theories of the Trumpies.  Either no ballots with bamboo fragments were found, or they didn't have such equipment, but the few irregularities in the count that they did find were perpetrated by Trump supporters. Maybe that's why they quit. Ultimately, they quickly concluded, when the money ran out, that Biden really did carry Arizona.  

In fact, all of the various "conspiracies" about how the election was stolen from Trump, some of them oldies but goodies that have been around for a long time, some of them new accusations related to mail-in ballots and technology, have been debunked.  That doesn't change the minds of those who are convinced it happened, but when they keep insisting that they know, it is proof of their complete ignorance of the way elections are handled in this country.  It means they have no clue about the way ballots are secured and counts are handled.  I don't think anything I've ever seen has looked as pitifully stupid as all these Trumpies showing up where ballots were being counted, demanding to observe.  Clearly, they didn't know that there were already people there on their side for that purpose. 

Obviously, there's no restriction on gun ownership.  More Americans now own guns than ever before, and all of the whining and griping about Obama, and then Biden, wanting to take away guns was just whining.  Neither of them wanted to take anything away, all they want to do is enforce responsible gun ownership, which is something that we obviously do not have now.  That's also something a clear majority of Americans favor, so not having it, in whatever form it takes, means that the will of the people is being thwarted.  

Racial Equality and Social Justice is not tyranny.  Free speech and freedom of conscience is constitutionally guaranteed, just as much as the right to bear arms.  Being an American has nothing to do with being caucasian and speaking English.  Being American is living up to a specific set of ideals and values, regardless of the language spoken or racial or ethnic background of the individual American.  And that doesn't mean the cultural norms and values of the predominant racial group must be adopted in order for the minorities to be assimilated.  People have a right to their social, political, ethnic and religious identity and it does not have to conform to the majority.  

So Grow Up, You Damn Right Wing Snowflake!

Stop whining.  The "liberals" being in change has not affected anyone's civil liberties, least of all the right to own as many weapons of a full variety of calibre of firepower, which is the second amendment interpretation that the far right has chosen to implement.  It's certainly not my interpretation of the second amendment, so be grateful for the fact that if I were in charge, and had any say over gun ownership at all, I'd allow one hunting rifle, and one hand gun, provided a background check was passed, there was no prior criminal record, the owner had at least a high school diploma, and was at least 21 years of age and a six month waiting period had passed.  There would have to be a valid reason, such as being a member of the national guard or providing security for public events and venues, to own anything more than that.  President Obama and President Biden have been gracious and generous in what they have allowed.  

The country does not have to be made over on anyone's terms.  We endured four years of horrific incompetence under Trump, so the right wing can surely have the patience to endure government by the left, if that's really an accurate description of the Biden Administration.  The voters have spoken, and they have the right to be heard.  You still have the right to vote and have your vote count.  And stop whining about voter fraud that can't be proven and which did not occur.  That's a lie.  Repeating it over and over again and acting like it's true makes snowflakes out of those who claim it.  Stop being a damn, right wing snowflake, grow up and demonstrate a measure of maturity expected of an American.  Learn about democracy and how it works.  Grow up, for heaven's sake. 

Lowest Jobless Claims Rate Since 1969

Yet another accomplishment for the Biden Administration.   The lowest rate of unemployment claims since 1969 is now part of the record.  

US Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest Level Since 1969

And a record monthly budget surplus, not deficit, imagine that. 

Tax Revenue Boom Fuels Steep Budget Deficit Decline

That's just this week's news.  Mainstream media has, in some cases, given this reasonable coverage.  And giving credit where credit is due, they have done well in their coverage of the Uvalde shooting and its aftermath.  It is unfortunate that we are getting to know those 19 children and two teachers because of the manner in which they died, but their memory is being honored.  

The response that the people of Uvalde got from the President was, "We will do something."  The response they got from the governor of Texas was nothing.  

It's Not Just the Status Quo for the Biden Administration

I was listening to South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn on the Sunday Show today, and this gives me confidence that the Democrats do indeed know exactly where things stand and they also know where the messaging needs to be.  The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart is, in my opinion, the best of the Sunday political shows anywhere on  television.  Capehart called Representative Clyburn "politically brilliant," which agrees with my personal assessment of him and Clyburn spends about five minutes putting things into clear perspective, including declaring that the Biden administration not only knows what has to be done to get things in order, but in his words, "he will."  

It's worth the time to watch it.  It's one link in the video menu here: 

 Rep. James Clyburn on The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart, June 5th

I believe it, too.  

Two Big Republican Lies Bite the Dust This Week

Trump "Spying on Me" Case Falls Apart as Sussman Acquitted

Not a "Speck of Proof" in Sarah Palin's Libel Case Against the New York Times

Two Republican Liars Lose their Court Battles

Everything that comes out of former President 45's mouth is a lie.  Everything.  Even his breath.  

The accusation that his campaign was illegally "spied" on, going back to the Obama adminstration, which was nothing but a diversion to attract attention away from the reality that the Russians had helped Trump's campaign in a big way, fell apart this week as Michael Sussman was acquitted in the first case brought to trial by Special Counsel John Durham.  Sussman was the key to the whole accusation, so it is pretty clear that there's nothing to investigate.  Durham has had three years to come up with something, short of actually making stuff up, which is exactly what the former President did when he originally made the accusation.  He has less to go on now than he did when he started. 

Those Republicans who bought into this tripe are "suckers," to use one of the former President's favorite terms of derision.  It's so obvious that this was a diversion, and that there was absolutely no evidence to support the accusation, that even some GOP politicians, most notably Mitch McConnell, have gone to great lengths to avoid comment.  

The fact that the government has to go through the motions to finish all of this out, at a cost of millions to taxpayers, when anyone involved, including the attorneys on their side, know there's nothing there, is an insult to the justice system and to those of us who are watching this happen, wondering how some people in a major political party got to be so absolutely, bottomlessly stupid.  

Then There's Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, sued the New York Times for libel.  It's hard to imagine that a former governor would be so ignorant of the law, and how the courts work, to file a lawsuit without any evidence to prove the case.  It's even harder to imagine what attorney would take the case, except for the money involved in what has to be some pretty fat legal fees.  

In Palin's case, not being a lawyer, and taking note of her political perspective, suing the Times might be something to do for political grandstanding or even just to try and get even.  But Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska because of the inordinate amount of money the state was having to spend because of her multiple ethics violations, largely related to her own incompetence as governor.  She interpreted Times reporting as a personal attack, as she did everything else, seemingly incapable of recognizing her own incompetence, lack of experience and personal abrasiveness.  

If Palin were a Democrat, the right wing media would label her as a "snowflake" for whining about something in a newspaper.  So the lawsuit was dismissed without any merit, which was followed by accusations that the judge was biased against her and did not conduct the case in accordance with the rules.  But the court record showed that everything had been done correctly and in order, and Palin had no evidence to support the further accusations.  

I've heard her called worse things than a snowflake. 

Republican Expectations:  Expect Favors from Republican Judges

In both of these cases, there's a clear expectation that judges will rule in favor of the politician, not based on the law, but based on the judge's political preference. FP 45 has openly whined about the fact that judges he's appointed to the federal bench don't seem inclined to do him favors when he needs them, especially when he wanted to throw out votes against him to make himself believe he actually won the election in 2020.  That appears to be the main theme of his judicial appointments. 

With Palin, it seems that she thinks they should rule in her favor because they like her and they are on her side politically.  The law is meaningless to people like this, so why is it that we think they're fit for office?  Neither of them had any political experience at all and it showed in their complete disrespect for the rule of law, and their complete ignorance of it, leading to incompetence, corruption and in FP 45's case, losing an election, in Palin's case, forced to resign.

Do people actually bother to look at this stuff?  Can they see this?  I don't understand why it doesn't matter and what they think the outcome will be when these people are in charge.  We'd be a walkover for a Russian or Chinese takeover. 

The Southern Baptist Convention Faces a Day of Reckoning

Russell Moore: This is the Southern Baptist Apocalypse

Southern Baptists Refuse to Act on Abuse Despite Database of Abuse Reports

Rachel Denhollander Calls for a Southern Baptist Reckoning on Abuse

It would be difficult to pinpoint the origins of the disaster that has occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention, characterized by the report from Guidepost Solutions on the manner which the SBC's executive committee handled allegations of sexual abuse within the Southern Baptist Convention.  The veneration of leaders of the denomination's "Conservative Resurgence," which began in 1979, and the subsequent "carte blanche" they were given within the denomination's executive level is at the bottom of the effort to cover up as much abuse as possible.  

Victims of the abuse have been trying to get the attention of denominational leaders for years, asking for some kind of resolution and solution to the problem.  In a Christian denomination that professes absolute belief in an inerrant, infallible Bible, they not only hit a stone wall, but they found their integrity questioned, accused of being tools of the Devil and accomplices in a Satanic attack on the SBC's mission efforts, and in some cases, wound up being accused themselves.  What transpired, and has now been reported by the Guidepost Solutions' investigative report, was not only inexcusable, but was contrary to every Christian principle on which the SBC claims to stand.  

The 2022 Annual Meeting in Anaheim won't be "The Reckoning" 

It's really too soon for reaction to this 300 page report from Guidepost Solutions to sink in and be read and understood by Southern Baptist leaders, and by those who will be elected to serve as messengers from their churches to the convention's annual meeting in Anaheim in a couple of weeks.  Reaction to it has been varied, from those who are calling for repentance and for reform of a system of committees and trustee boards which permitted the kinds of abuses of power that the report uncovered, to a faction that can't quite wrap their minds around the reality that the denomination they believed was spiritually superior to everyone else because of its conservative theology is experiencing something like this.  There's all kinds of distraction, from claiming that the SBC is drifting into "theological liberalism" to claiming that many of its current leaders are "woke."  Though neither allegation can be substantiated by a whit of proof, it's a distraction from the real problem. 

The Sexual Abuse Task Force, SATF, which is the group that commissioned, and then received, the investigation report from Guidepost Solutions, will be making recommendations for messengers to vote on at the convention in Anaheim in just a couple of weeks.  These recommendations deal specifically with the findings of the investigation and are aimed at correcting flaws and putting things straight when it comes to the Executive Committee's handling of sexual abuse allegations.  

There will be other motions, put forward by messengers, aimed at reforming an outdated, flawed system of committees and trustee boards, which run the denomination, its mission boards, its seminaries, its publishing house and its commissions.  There will be a call for all of the remaining executive committee members who voted against waiving privilege so the investigation could move forward unhindered to step down or be removed.  There is precedent for making such a motion, though the convention has never done something like that before, I wouldn't take bets on that not happening now.  

There were a number of executive committee staff, two former Executive Directors and several former SBC Presidents, including both of the "architects" of the Conservative Resurgence implicated in the report. I also suspect there will be a motion calling for the removal of anyone connected to all of those former leaders on a trustee board or committee, and there will be lists of who those members are and where they are serving.  That's also something I wouldn't bet against happening, nor against its success. 

The Reckoning Will Happen Over Time

Regardless of any action, or lack of it if a certain faction has its way, it will be the people in the churches who bring about the reckoning.  It will take time to see if the plans that are made have the desired effect in resolving the problem, and even more for people to trust that what convention and church leaders are doing will prevent abuse and protect victims.  That might not ever materialize.  

Depending on which faction gets its officers elected in Anaheim will also determine how much trust there will be.  If the faction that is throwing out the distractions, and looking at gaining the reins of power for other purposes, a group called CBN, (Conservative Baptist Network), then the report will not be taken seriously and a group of individuals who think that the victims of sexual abuse are really serving the Devil's purposes in interfering with SBC evangelistic efforts will be in control of denominational operations.  

But there's a vacuum in the leadership as the old line Conservative Resurgence faction fades, and has been dealt what I would consider to be a fatal blow by their handling of this scandal.  Who steps into that vacuum?  The younger pastors and church leaders who are the next generation after the resurgence group ages and retires have not expressed any interest in taking up the bureaucratic mantle of leadership.  Those who have given it a shot get discouraged by the infighting and jockeying for power among the good-ole-boys and don't seem to be interested in the same kind of power politics.  And when they do step up, their critics abandon their Christian principles and beliefs to castigate and criticize, spewing vitriolic resentment over their choices and ways of doing things.  They are neither liberal nor woke, but they've been accused of being both and that's not always good for their ministry. 

Many of the younger pastors and leaders with the potential to exercise visionary leadership for the denomination because they're having success with it in their churches are just leaving the SBC because they see that it is holding them back. David Platt, who was the youngest executive director ever appointed to the International Mission Board, left the bureaucracy and what was considered one of the most "prestigious" positions in the denomination behind to go back to pastor a church, this time a non-denominational one.  

What the SBC needs, and whoever it chooses as its leaders, is humility.  That's a Biblical value, by the way, something that the denomination has not been known to exhibit.  When the current SBC president, Ed Litton, exhibited humility, admitted to a highly publicized mistake he had made, and asked forgiveness, the response from his fellow pastors and denominational leaders wasn't a humble one. As right wing politics have infused the convention and confused its values, humility has been replaced by arrogance and divisiveness and what happened to Pastor Litton was an egregious example of the shift in values.  

Denominations Have A Lot of Unnecessary Baggage and This is a Good Example

Southern Baptists always point to their Cooperative Program as the reason that justifies the existence of a Baptist denomination known for its squabbles, fights and issues.  A unified giving plan for missions seems like justification for all of the unbiblical aspects of denominationalism. But the Cooperative Program is a bureaucracy in which a massive amount of the money that is received from the churches goes to maintaining the structure of the bureaucracy.  There's no argument against that claim.  The administration of the SBC takes a lot of money, not only contributions from the churches, but money from investments made over the years, in property held by the denomination and profits from Lifeway, its publishing house.  

What happens among Southern Baptists is a competition between prominent pastors in "prestigious" pulpits, networks of individuals who can use their influence and the power of certain denominational positions to get their friends and relatives into those denominational jobs like seminary administrators, field administrators of the mission boards, executive positions like the seminary presidencies, Lifeway execs, the ERLC and the executive board.  Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler, when they organized the Conservative Resurgence, created a hierarchy and rewarded loyalty, claiming it was all about belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.  

If it is to be successful, and at this point, success is anything that leaves the SBC somewhat intact, the reckoning that is coming has to purge this system of the worldly temptation to power and influence, making leadership positions servants, not Lords of the manor, and basing the qualifications on skill and spiritual calling, not on connections and influence, or money.  Unfortunately, I don't think the SBC is capable of getting to that point.  The appeals to "missions support" have been veiled demands for loyalty to individual leaders for too long.  Those churches with younger, visionary leaders have been in the process of finding other ways to engage in evangelism and missions outside the restrictions of SBC rules and the percentage of undesignated giving from SBC churches to the Cooperative Program has steadily declined ever since the Conservative Resurgence took control of the denomination.

The SBC, as a bureaucracy, will continue to exist.  Bureaucracies have self-preservation modes built in.  They will downsize, combine, merge, explain away, recall missionary personnel from the field before they will close the doors of the headquarters building and dissolve the executive committee. Their next executive director will be in the same mold as the most recent ones, white, older, a pastor of a larger church who is well connected and well known, because they won't be able to find a younger, more visionary leader who would want this or who is willing to endure being labeled a "liberal" or "woke," even though such a person doesn't likely exist in the SBC at the moment.  And what will distinguish Southern Baptists, aside from a declining, aging membership, will be the stain of the sexual abuse scandal.   

Gifts Being Given to Democrats for November 2022: No Excuses for Not Voting

This isn't rocket science, it's politics.  

I'll admit up front that I'm not a political strategist.  I majored in history, minored in English with the original intention of going to law school, but got attracted to a different, history-related career while still in college and along with that comes the interest in politics.  Political commentary is a writing hobby and I write from a fairly unique position here, that of being a strong, committed, progressive-to-liberal Democrat and a Christian with an Evangelical background (though I no longer identify as "Evangelical" because of what that now defines).  

What I've been seeing, over the past six weeks or so, is a political shift that is pushing advantages toward Democrats and changing the mid-term election outlook.  The President's job approval rating doesn't seem to show much movement, nor does Trump disapproval, but there's a lot of movement elsewhere, and it seems to be heading toward a different outcome than the standard "President's party always loses seats in Congress during the mid-terms."  

Follow My Reasoning Here  

Regardless of the composite poll, a clear majority of registered voters think January 6th was a genuine, certified, honest to goodness attempted coup which would have destroyed representative, constitutional democracy and turned the United States into an autocracy led by an oligarchy.  A more clear and certain majority believe that it was an insurrection, that Trump was behind the organizing and motivating, and that anyone involved in it should be arrested and prosecuted, including the members of the government, Congress, the executive branch cabinet and the former President himself.  The polling varies from 57% up to as high as 65% on that, depending on how the question is asked.  

A clear majority of voters, 58%, believe that abortion should be legal up to a period of time between the third and sixth month of a pregnancy.  About that same percentage of voters believe that if a woman's right to control her own body is affected by a decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, then other rights belonging to other groups of people are all at risk, particularly women's rights.  

Over 85% of voters believe that background checks and a minimum waiting period should be required before anyone is allowed to purchase a gun, and 58% believe that high powered, military-style rifles should not be available for purchase.  Somewhere in there is a clear majority who believe that 21 should be the minimum age for making a gun purchase, and a similar percentage feel that someone who has documented mental health issues should not be allowed to buy a gun. 

Those numbers come out of a variety of polls, similar to other numbers and other polls and they are at least as steady as some of the political stuff from the past year.  That should all translate into campaign themes which translate into votes which win elections.  When someone walks into a voting booth and starts touching the screen, all of this should have an effect on where the fingers go and which buttons get pushed.  Democrats, being on the correct political side of all of these issues, wanting to prosecute the January 6th criminals, believing that Roe should continue to stand and that abortion is a woman's choice, and that there should be sensible, reasonable, constitutional ownership of guns, should win the lion's share of these elections.  

When Democrats don't win, its because they can't motivate voters to think about these things when they go into the voting booth.  The voter is thinking "defund the police," or "socialism," or "they're coming to take away your guns" or some ridiculous Q-Anon conspiracy theory. Or the price of gas at $4.50 is not worth helping the Ukrainians or saving our democracy.  What they need to be thinking about, when they walk into that booth, is the people who died in the grocery store in Buffalo, the church in California and the school in Uvalde.  They need to remember photos of their faces, smiles, and the fact that they left behind grieving, hurting families who loved them.  They need to be thinking that what they are doing at that moment will make a difference.  

Disappointment and Frustration are Everywhere

Post from Uvalde: We Are Not a Red State, we are an Oppressed State

Look at the replies to this post on Democratic Underground, mine included.  There's a lot of pent-up frustration there.  And why shouldn't there be?  In just a few short weeks, we've gone through this seemingly endless ritual at least three times.  And a group of self-interested politicians stonewalls any effort to make things better and do something about it. The Republicans are not pro-life, as much as they want to claim that position, they won't lift a finger to change things in order to protect kids in schools and that is not a pro-life position.  

Don't think that what's happened hasn't made a difference.  Abbott cut and ran today.  That's right.  He was scheduled to appear at the NRA convention in Houston, but instead, decided that public pressure was hot enough and went to Uvalde to have a press conference instead.  Now don't believe a word that he said in that press conference, but the fact that he was there, instead of in Houston, is a victory on behalf of the children who died in that shooting, and their parents. They are afraid of what the voters might do in November.  It needs to stay that way.  

The sense of futility and frustration that is present in Kpete's post on DU is very much a reality in Texas.  I lived in Texas for 25 years, including a number of years in a South Texas county very similar to Uvalde in ethnic makeup.  Latino voter registration lags behind that of white voters because there is a sense of frustration that nothing gets done and there is a fear that providing the information necessary to register will lead to invasions of privacy and harrassment that white voters don't understand.  That's a reality.  The post correctly reflects a genuine sense of oppression.  I've seen it myself.  And yes, it is motivated by ethnic bigotry.  If the shooting had happened in a predominantly white, middle class suburb, the way everything has been handled and the whole reaction and response by politicians would be different.  

The only way things will change is for people to get involved and while it may seem that voting is futile, the fact of the matter is that there is strength and power in unity and using the ballot box does bring change.  The Latino population in Texas is now at 42%, equal to the non-hispanic white population. But their voice in government, including elected officials of both parties, is less than a third of that percentage.  They're not "immigrants."  Most of the Latino population of Texas, especially in the southern third of the state, are native born, and their ancestors were there several generations before the first white American settlers arrived.  

This isn't "politicizing" these shootings.  Far from it, the right had already politicized the issue by their failure to enact reasonable, constitutional laws that would have prevented these shootings and those who were murdered where they thought they were safe would still be alive.  The Democrats are the only ones with the plans and proposals that will put a stop to this insanity. I'd much rather be accused of  politicizing the event than to have to face yet another day grieving over a classroom full of dead children because I didn't do what I could.  And voting for Democrats committed to gun control is the least that I can do..

We owe this to the families of the victims of the shooting in the Topps Friendly Market in Buffalo, who believed they were safe when they were doing their grocery shopping.  We owe it to the families of the victims of the shooting in the church in California, who thought it was safe to worship God.  We owe it to the families of those precious children in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, who were only thinking of the last few days of school and though they were safe in their classroom.  We owe this to the parents of the students who died at Sandy Hook Elementary school, at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, at Columbine, to every single family member of every person in this country who thought their rights were equally protected under the law.  

We owe them more than just our vote.  That's the least we can do.  

I'm Angry, Sad, Frustrated and Sick of the Shootings and I am Committed to Doing Something About it

What about you? 

Saturday, I pulled into a parking spot at the local grocery store where I do most of my shopping, and I did something I can't remember ever doing before.  I sat there listening to the radio for a few minutes, contemplating whether or not I wanted to go inside.  I did some things I've never done before when I went there.  I made myself completely aware of my surroundings.  I found myself sizing up people who were going inside, trying to notice things that I know for sure I never paid any attention to before the shooting in Buffalo.  I took nothing for granted, went in, got what I needed as fast as I could and got out.  

My stepmother, who is 94, was a regular shopper at a Topps Friendly Market in Buffalo when she was more active.  She's a cheerful woman, always smiling, and would take neighbors from the senior apartment complex where she lived to the store with her.  The store they shopped at, just a few blocks from her apartment, was less than five miles from the one where the attack took place.  I cannot imagine even thinking about them being inside with an active shooter.  Many of those in the store who were shot were elderly and I can't help thinking about how their children, grandchildren and extended family members must feel at this point.  

Add to that the news of the church shooting in California, and then, the attack on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and I'm at a point now where I can't even describe what I am feeling.  I'm an elementary school principal myself, and for the past two days, I've watched parents drop their kids off, lingering a little longer as they enter the building, giving an extra hug or kiss, a few of them keeping kids home during these last days of the school year.  

I watched the interviews with the family members who lost loved ones in the store shooting in Buffalo.  How do you wrap your mind around the sudden loss of someone you love, imagining their last moments on the floor of a grocery store?  And then, Savannah Guthrie's heart-wrenching interviews with the parents of some of the kids who died in the Uvalde massacre.  Both of those videos should be required viewing for every single member of Congress, every cabinet member, governor and every state legislator in the country.  They should watch until they get it.

It Was Preventable

The fact that an 18 year old can, on their 18th birthday, purchase the kinds of weapons this kid did, is a complete and utter failure of our elected officials, specifically the governor and state legislature of Texas.  In a state that leads the nation in random, mass shootings, where people have died in school classrooms and church auditoriums in large numbers, common sense would indicate that there would be some kind of legislative response.  In Texas, the response has been to make it even easier to get high powered weapons because of the flawed logic that doing so will prevent mass shootings like these from happening. 

Look at the record and see how well that's worked out. 

A background check requirement would not have prevented this shooter from eventually getting his hands on a weapon, but it would have delayed the process and that would have very likely diffused the situation.  There's no clear explanation at this point, but if he was acting on impulse, and didn't have the ability to get his hands on high powered weapons, would he still have been angry or upset enough to go to the school several days after whatever triggered him had passed?  

Of course, a law restricting the purchase of this kind of weapon and firepower would be the most sensible thing to do, not in any way a violation of any intention of the second amendment, a discussion I will have later, but these kids and their teachers would still be alive if such a law had been on the books.  

There's some question about the police response to the situation, the length of time it took, how the guy managed to get into the school past armed security, which is the Republican cure-all for gun crime.  If you look at the school layout, you can see that it is a cluster of buildings, about half the classrooms open to the outside, to exterior sidewalks and the approaches to the school are open.  It's a small town with a small police force and this obviously was not anticipated.  What is obvious is that the firepower possessed by the shooter rendered the armed security precautions useless.  

Gun Laws in the US Are Based on a False Interpretation of the Second Amendment

The failure of our educational system is criminal in and of itself, especially when it comes to serving as the means by which our democracy is preserved, which is one of its claimed purposes.  The fact that an entire political party, and a good segment of the population, have absolutely no understanding of constitutional liberty or law is one of the reasons why things like this happen in the United States, but they don't happen almost anywhere else in the free, democratic world where the right to bear arms is a guaranteed freedom. 

The "right to bear arms," a constitutional guarantee in the second amendment, pertains to a "well regulated militia."  The United States did not maintain a regular, standing army in 1789, when the Constitution was drafted.  Each state had its own militia, some of which fought against other states over various issues.  Militia were made up of men who were called to service when there was a need for them.  By the time the Constitution was drafted and headed for ratification, militia were becoming outdated.  But at the time, a "call to arms" because of a potential attack from a foreign nation, which, in the case of the United States meant Britain, France or Spain, most likely, required men to own their own weapons and keep them close by in case they were called upon to use them.  That, my friends, is the long and short of the "right to bear arms."  

The establishment of a standing military has made private ownership of military-style weaponry obsolete.  Oh, there are populists who shriek about "tyranny" and who own a variety of weapons because they can, but the United States no longer has a "well-regulated militia" requiring private citizens to own weapons.  The National Guard is the closest thing we have to that, but even they provide their service men and women with weapons.  

Here, we are driven by profit motive and money, plain and simple, and acquiring that has become more important than the sanctity of human life.  We have a difficult time learning things from other people.  Other countries have the same rights, but they do not see enforcing accountability as an interference with that right.  And for political conservatives, who seem particularly bent on control when it comes to protecting the unborn, the callous disregard for potential victims of gun violence makes hypocrites out of politicians who claim to be pro-life. 

Simply put, no argument can be made to justify someone carrying a high powered weapon into any venue they please.  That is not what the second amendment means.  And the interpretations of it, reflected in our laws, testify to the ignorance of the law and the constitution of the lawmakers who pass and enforce this legislation, and to the voters who put them there.  It is contradictory to complain that abortion legislation protects the "sanctity of human life" when there's no willingness to protect children in school from mass shooters.  The bottom line is money.  Gun manufacturers make a lot of it.  Protecting school campuses costs a lot of it.  There you have it. 

VOTE

"Doing something about it" means not voting for those politicians who permit this to occur.  It means actively working for the defeat of politicians like Greg Abbott, who is looking out for his own interests, and who, just hours after visiting Uvalde and speaking with victims, was back on the campaign trail raising money for his campaign.  In Uvalde County, voter registration lags behind some parts of the state, which is typical for predominantly Latino counties in Texas.  There is voter suppression and intimidation, for sure, that goes without saying.  In a county where 72% of the population is Latino, but Latino voters make up less than 50% of the total voter registration, something is wrong and something needs to change. 

There's ideology that is being promoted and supported by Republicans that is behind at least some of what is going on.  Clearly, the shooting in the supermarket in Buffalo was racially motivated, by the idea of "white replacement theory," which many Republicans refuse to disavow and which some support, a few publicly.  It is a ridiculously ignorant way of thinking, covered up by more ridiculous, ignorant thinking in their distortions of and opposition to CRT.  

I was very impressed that Beto O'Rourke went to Uvalde, right into the press conference and confronted the governor and the mayor.  We need more of that to wake people up and activate their participation in democracy.  Voter registration in Uvalde needs to reflect the population, as it does in other parts of Texas.  If the murder of 19 children and two teachers can't motivate participation in the process for change, what will?

Republican, Democratic Gubernatorial Primaries in Illinois Are Quite a Contrast

 WGN Republican Gubernatorial Debate

It's pretty boring and turgid, and I just posted it because it's probably the best way to make the point here.  There are five or six Republicans in Illinois trying to unseat Democratic Governor J. B. Pritzker.  There's not much of a chance--in fact--there's not really any chance that any of these candidates will even make this a reasonably close race, but they're sure trying hard.  And they are beating each other senseless in a war of words unlike any partisan primary race I've ever witnessed.  And that's not just rhetoric or exaggeration, they really are.  

Governor Pritzker is One of the Leading Democratic Governors in the Nation

Illinoisans have been blessed.  As one of the most populous states in the country, with its third most populous city and a major transportation hub at what is one of the world's busiest airports, COVID could have been a major disaster in this state.  But our governor was on top of it.  He worked with Chicago officials to make sure there were enough staffed hospital beds to cover any contingency, and in fact, while cases were on the rise everywhere, Chicago's contingency hospitals never got close to capacity.  

Yeah, there were restrictions and mandates, shut-downs and closings.  But this governor always made sure to soften the impact by using the state government to help out as much as possible.  There's a long list of his accomplishments, not all of them popular, but all of them effective in making Illinois one of the better states in which to live during the pandemic.  And a lot of people recognize that.  

He's spending a little bit of time and money campaigning during the primary.  Nothing negative, nothing attacking his potential GOP opponents, but ads pointing to the investments made in creating job growth, excellent job growth in fact, in places where industry and manufacturing were drying up before he became governor.  He's done a tremendous amount in that regard, job growth in Illinois is as healthy as it is anywhere else in the country.  He has a long list of positive achievements on which to run, so there's no need to attack his potential GOP opponents. 

Quite a Contrast on the Other Side

In true Trumpie fashion, the Republicans are ripping into each other, laying out all of their faults and making the case that none of them should be allowed to get anywhere near the governorship of Illinois, based on their total lack of character, lying about their record, and--this is a good one--lying about all of the monetary contributions they are getting from Democrats, including from Governor Pritzker.  The lies are outlandish.  But they are giving the Democrats their campaign theme.  

They've got some time, between now and the primary, to really hand this to the Governor on a silver, or perhaps even gold, platter.  On social media, even conservative Republicans are complaining about the candidates.  The media is trying really hard to be fair, at least equally to the GOP candidates, but they're having trouble not pointing out polling data that shows this will be a runaway for Governor Pritzker. 

The debate was relatively tame, and missing one of the most caustic, vitriolic candidates, Richard Irvin, controversial mayor of the city of Aurora who can't figure out which political party with which to side.  He's been the accuser-in-chief, not holding back anything for the sake of party loyalty, lest one of his opponents be the nominee.  He'll burn the house down if he doesn't get the nomination, I guarantee it.  

The Pritzker campaign doesn't really have to take notes.  They can continue to run as they are, touting the governor's record and not getting in the way of what is a vicious GOP fight.  The Republicans in Illinois will do a great job of convincing voters to re-elect J. B. Pritzker.