Closing Thought–09Aug22

In these days of high inflation we all have been jammed up at the pump….those damn gas prices are just too damn high…..but not to worry they have started their slow drop……but will they ever return to the days of yore when gas was affordable?

The answer to that question is….probably not!

Nothing can make or break a president’s political fortunes like the price of gasoline. As Ben Lefebvre reports for Politico, President Biden is trying to ease the pain by tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, easing rules on ethanol sales, and proposing a temporary gas tax cut. Such bandages might bring temporary economic and political reprieve, but they’re not likely to last, according to Lefebvre. Others may disagree. For example, Republicans blame Biden’s climate agenda and are apt to call for more drilling. Environmentalists and transportation analysts say oil prices are bound to fall amid rising demand for electric vehicles and renewable fuels. That may be true, eventually, but US demand for gasoline will remain high for the foreseeable future, and there’s not much anyone can do about it, writes Lefebvre.

The problem boils down to the nation’s refining capacity, which has fallen steadily in recent years, not because of political directives or decreased demand but—in several ways—as a result of climate change. First, there’s the physical threat posed by intensifying storms along the Gulf Coast. That’s why Phillips 66 closed a Louisiana refinery damaged by Hurricane Ida last year, and it’s also why insurance rates are skyrocketing. Meanwhile, Shell shuttered a Louisiana refinery as part of its “strategic shift to shrink its fossil fuel asset portfolio.” It’s being converted to produce biodiesel. Others are following suit as executives and investors adapt to the economic and politic realities of climate change. Nobody plans to build new refineries, and those that remain are old and getting older. And that’s why any future presidents should expect to feel Biden’s pain. Read Lefebvre’s analysis here.

Sorry to be a bummer and pee on the parade….but I thought you needed to know before you got too excited.

You see they, oil industry, will keep a tight control on supply so they can maximize their profits.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Will Inflation Slow?

A good question for us armchair economists…..and I am sure there is a wealth of opinions out there…..this is just mine.

Let’s begin with the new Inflation Reduction Act before the Congress……

The bill, introduced last week after a long-awaited deal was struck between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and moderate Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.), was pitched as a way to lower costs for consumers while also reducing the federal budget deficit and spending billions on environmental initiatives meant to combat climate change.

It didn’t take long for a problem to present itself.

“The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero,” concluded the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), a number-crunching policy center based at the University of Pennsylvania. In fact, if the bill’s passage had any impact on inflation in the short term, it would be to increase it very slightly until 2024, according to the group’s preliminary analysis, released on Friday.

Other parts of the Inflation Reduction Act would do what Manchin and Schumer claim. According to the PWBM report, the bill would reduce future deficits by a cumulative $247 billion over the next decade and would marginally reduce the national debt as a result. It would spend about $370 billion on new environmental and climate initiatives. It would pay for all that by raising taxes and by boosting IRS enforcement, in hopes of chasing down revenue that currently goes unpaid.

But again, the Inflation Reduction Act won’t actually reduce inflation.

The ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ Won’t Actually Reduce Inflation

Once again the answers to the nation’s economic problems is a bill or action that does little to help.

I have made my thoughts known and the comments were as I expected…..but like I say….they are my opinions not a game plan although my ideas would help.

“Inflation” is the new buzzword of the year. It is the reason for the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes designed to increase the costs of some loans. It is the excuse given against renewing the expanded child tax credit program that briefly lifted millions of American families out of poverty. It forms the name of one of the key pieces of legislation that may salvage President Joe Biden’s first term: the Inflation Reduction Act. And, it is the basis of Republican complaints against Democrats heading toward the midterm elections this fall.

With all this concern over inflation, one wonders why so little heed has been paid to another “i” word: inequality.

For decades, government officials, media pundits, mainstream economists, politicians, and others were content to allow and even enable money to flow upward, enriching the already wealthy. They paid little heed to increasing inequality, beyond shrugging their shoulders and lamenting the injustice of it all.

To fiscally conservative politicians, it seems that inflation equates to trouble, but inequality is perfectly tolerable.

To Reduce Inflation, Control Corporate Profits

We are told daily how tough things are for the corporations…..and yet they find enough cash to buy other companies even football teams when times are tough.

So yes….I agree with the article above.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Dems Did Something Right

In a vote down party lines (go figure) the Dems have passed a sweeping economic package (I am not sure how damn sweeping it is….but at least they did something)

Democrats pushed their election-year economic package to Senate passage Sunday, a hard-fought compromise less sweeping than President Biden’s original domestic vision but one that still meets deep-rooted party goals of slowing global warming, moderating pharmaceutical costs, and taxing immense corporations. The estimated $740 billion package heads next to the House, where lawmakers are positioned to deliver on Biden’s priorities, a stunning turnaround of what had seemed a lost and doomed effort that suddenly roared back to political life. Democrats held united, 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote, the AP reports.

“The Senate is making history,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer ahead of the final votes. “I am confident the Inflation Reduction Act will endure as one of the defining legislative measures of the 21st century.” Senators engaged in a round-the-clock marathon of voting that began Saturday and stretched into late Sunday afternoon. Democrats swatted down some three dozen Republican amendments designed to torpedo the legislation. Confronting unanimous GOP opposition, Democratic unity in the 50-50 chamber held, keeping the party on track for a morale-boosting victory three months before elections in which congressional control is at stake. The House seemed likely to provide final congressional approval when it returns briefly from summer recess on Friday.

The bill ran into trouble midday over objections to the new 15% corporate minimum tax that private equity firms and other industries disliked, forcing last-minute changes. Still, the approval gives Democrats a campaign-season showcase for action on coveted goals. It includes the largest-ever federal effort on climate change—close to $400 billion—while capping out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors on Medicare to $2,000 a year and extending expiring subsidies that help 13 million people afford health insurance. By raising corporate taxes, the whole package is paid for, with some $300 billion extra revenue for deficit reduction. Nonpartisan analysts have said the package would have a minor effect on surging consumer prices. Schumer told the Washington Post that the legislation provides “things that Americans have longed for, and couldn’t get done.”

This ought to improve the Dems chances in November……it may even boost Biden to low approval ratings from very poor approval.

More needed doing but I guess we should be thankful that these people did something positive.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Here a RINO, There A RINO

Another of my series of WTF Is Happening?

Now there is a popular term in the last few years….meaning those GOPers that do not hold the same radical beliefs of those little nuts in the party.

The GOP is a party running scared….afraid of minorities….afraid of women….afraid of education….afraid of science….afraid of fact checking…..afraid of the voter….and afraid of itself……hence the label RINO……

But what does it mean and where does it stop?

What do you know of the history of the term?

I can help with that lapses in your education……

Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a disparaging term that refers to a Republican candidate whose political views are seen as insufficiently conforming to the party line.

The phrase, without the RINO acronym, became first popularized during the Theodore Roosevelt presidency, as he was often labeled a “Republican in name only” by both critics and proponents, as his trust-busting policies were at odds with long-standing Republican Party ideologies.

By 1992, the acronym “RINO” had shown up in print, with an article in the New Hampshire Union Leader, written by John Distaso, being cited as the first instance of RINO in print.

The use of the term RINO arose as polarization increased in the political parties. Prior to the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, the Democratic and Republican parties had been in a long process of realignment where conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans were quite common. With the election of Bill Clinton, Republican ideological unity became increasingly fixed. This is exemplified by Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which called upon signatories to reject and oppose all measures to increase tax rates. By 2012, nearly every Republican presidential candidate was a signatory to this pledge.

The increasing ideological unity of the Republican Party made holdovers from the previous political alignment look like outliers. Whereas historically liberal Republicans comprised a wing of the Republican Party, they had (by 1992, and especially by 2020) become incompatible with the Republican Party itself.

Therefore, in an age of party unity, the term RINO was often used as a political weapon. It could be used as a threat: vote how your party wants or be branded a RINO. It could also be used as an effective tool in a primary campaign: the incumbent is a RINO, vote for the challenger. Indeed, in the 2010 Congressional Elections, the Tea Party effectively used the term RINO as a way to “primary” Republican Incumbents whose policies were not conservative enough.

I know you have heard the term used….you may have even used it yourself…..but what is a RINO in the Republican world?

Donald Trump went to Wyoming to campaign against Republican Rep. Liz Cheney. He repeatedly called her a “RINO” and urged the state’s voters to elect her challenger, Harriet Hageman. But Trump’s speech exposed how the meaning of “RINO” has changed. It used to refer to people who weren’t Reagan conservatives. Now it refers to people who are.

The substantive positions for which Trump praised Hageman—on oil drilling, guns, crime, and border enforcement—were no different from Cheney’s. In fact, according to the American Conservative Union, Cheney’s voting record is far more conservative than the record of Rep. Elise Stefanik, who, at Trump’s behest, replaced her last year as chair of the House Republican Conference.

In his speech, Trump called Cheney a “lapdog” for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But that accusation, too, is bogus: Cheney has voted against Pelosi’s positions more consistently than have the top three officials in the House Republican Conference.

So Trump’s beef with Cheney isn’t about conservatism. Unless, that is, he finds her too conservative. And in many respects, he does: On several major issues, Cheney respects longstanding Republican principles, while Trump flouts them.

You can disagree with Cheney or her father about their positions on these conflicts. But you can’t argue that Trump’s position, compared to theirs, is more “Republican.” For 15 years, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global struggle against terrorism defined the GOP. The 2012 Republican platform—the last platform before Trump seized control of the party—resolved to “employ the full range of military and intelligence options to defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates.” The platform opposed troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and pledged that “future decisions by a Republican President will never subordinate military necessity to domestic politics or an artificial timetable.”

What Makes a Republican a “RINO”?

Don’t get me started on DINOs!

Your history lesson is done…..now don’t you feel smarter?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–04Aug22

Our Congress has voted on Sweden and Finland vote on joining NATO…..overwhelmingly in both Houses.

I have been in opposition to this situation for I think it will make things more volatile than they are now…yet another finger poke at Russia.

It is official the Senate has voted to allow Sweden and Finland into NATO…..

The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a resolution approving Sweden and Finland’s bids for NATO membership, demonstrating the bipartisan consensus on expanding the military alliance further on Russia’s border.

The measure passed the Senate in a vote of 95-1-1, with only Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) voting “no,” and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voting “present.”

In an op-ed published inThe National interest, Hawley explained that he was against expanding NATO into Sweden and Finland because he believes the US should be expanding its military resources into the Asia Pacific to counter China.

An amendment that Paul tried to add to the resolution would have emphasized that Article 5, NATO’s mutual defense clause, does not supersede congressional authorization for war. But the amendment failed in a vote of 10-87.

The Senate vote was needed to ratify US approval for Sweden and Finland to join the military alliance. All 30 NATO members need to approve the Nordic nations’ memberships, and according to The Hill, the Senate vote makes the US the 20th country to do so.

In July, the House voted on a resolution supporting Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids that passed in a vote of 394-18, with only Republicans voting against the measure.

Turkey is the only NATO member that has said its legislature might block Sweden and Finland from joining the alliance. Ankara initially blocked the Nordic countries from applying but lifted the objection after signing a memorandum at the NATO summit in June.

Turkey accused Sweden and Finland of supporting the PKK, a Kurdish militant group Ankara considers a terrorist organization. Under the memorandum, the two Nordic nations agreed to respond to Turkey’s extradition request for suspected PKK members and other alleged “terrorists.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the Turkish parliament could block Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids if they don’t comply.

(antiwar.com)

The bipartisan consensus for expanding NATO remains strong as the House approved a resolution on Monday endorsing Sweden and Finland’s memberships in a vote of 394-18, with only Republicans voting in opposition.

This is not something that the US should enter into lightly….but we did and apparently lobbyists money was well spent.

Ask yourself (you probably won’t) with this vote who will benefit the most?  (That means follow the money)

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

If You Want Democracy Then Learn…..

Since this country is proud of its democracy maybe a good thing to do is learn a few basic skills that will preserve the democracy that we all say we love…..they are much needed skills as we watch the republic slide into disarray.

This is probably not going to happen because most Americans think they know all there is about the Constitution, the very foundation of this nation.

If you truly love the democracy this country has to have and use all the techniques at our disposal…..if not then the slide that started back in 2010 will eventually eat away at the foundations of this country until we are left with nothing….nothing good.

These simple skills will help this democracy survive and thanx to the site courterpunch.org these skills are easily learned and used….even for the thickest dolts out there…..

As primaries roll out around the country, we’re tracking voter turnout. Raised on Schoolhouse Rock’s cartoon civics lessons, I know that being a good American means voting.

Those 1970’s cartoons weren’t wrong. Voting is the most fundamental act of democratic citizenship. That’s why it has been fiercely contested throughout our history.

But now we’re in the 21st century, deluged by information, increasingly divided, with few models of bipartisanship.

Democracy now requires much more than voting. What should a 21st century Schoolhouse Rocks teach?

Finding information

Most fundamentally, we need to be skilled seekers of information. In this era of deepfakes, bots, and fragmenting media platforms, the ability to access and evaluate information is key. Algorithms push us ever more deeply into one point of view. To address multifaceted 21st century issues, we need deliberately to seek a variety of information, including backstories about controversial events, from differing sources to construct the whole picture.

Understanding our own biases

We must process information skillfully, getting around our inherent neurobiological biases. For example, we naturally lap up information that confirms what we already think but ignore information that challenges our world view. We also are wired for double standards: we attribute another person’s bad behavior to their personality (“she’s late because she’s disrespectful”) while giving ourselves a pass for the same behavior (“I’m late because traffic was bad”). Understanding these natural biases lets us challenge ourselves to explore issues more fully.

Having conversations – not arguments – across divides

Understanding biases promotes a third democratic skill: truly talking with one another. Research, including my own, shows that liberals and conservatives alike often experience cross-divide conversations as an assault on their values. Yet most people also believe these conversations are important and would like to have them to feel connected and informed.

Constructive conversations require listening and asking good questions. Political scientist Andrew Dobson describes listening as our “democratic deficit.” We rarely listen closely to the other side. This undermines our ability to create policy which is seen as a legitimate outcome of democratic debate. Nor do we ask enough genuinely curious questions to learn why others think what they do to help find common ground. As Steve Benjamin, former head of the National Conference of Mayors, noted, “We all suffer from some degree of experiential blindness and need to become experts at learning about others’ perspectives.”

Having complicated relationships

Perhaps the most important – and most difficult — 21st century citizenship skill is maintaining relationships with people who think differently. For a democracy to function, we need not only a robust marketplace of ideas, but also the ability to work together for policy that meets widespread needs. A conservative interviewee in my study remarked, “Everybody is so comfortable being polarized – they are not happy unless they’re mad.”

It’s challenging to hold conflicting feelings about people, appreciating their good qualities while disagreeing on politics. But perhaps we make it harder than it is.

Research shows we overestimate both how much the other party dislikes us as well as how much they disagree with us about policy. Asking genuinely curious questions and remembering what we appreciate just might help us find that we have more in common than we think. Our 21st century democracy needs us to develop these skills.

Learn these skills and use them…..it will not be easy but survival is essential for this country.

Next Question.

How many amendments are there to the Constitution?

(I pause here for the dash to the Google machine)

27 and can you name them?

Do not hurt yourself I can help you out…..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment lays out five basic freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition the government.

hese rights were important to establish because they ensured that individuals could think, speak, and act without fear of being punished for disagreeing with the government. 

In addition to being arguably one of the most important amendments, the First Amendment is still very much at the center of America’s political discourse today — from questioning whether or not Twitter bots have First Amendment rights to whether or not the White House banning a CNN reporter violates the Constitution.

https://www.insider.com/what-are-all-the-amendments-us-constitution-meaning-history-2018-11#the-first-amendment-famously-protects-freedom-of-speech-1

Learn this stuff!

You must choose….does the republic survive as a democracy or will it divide itself along ignorant useless biased lines.

It is your decision….choose wisely.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

That China Thing

I have noticed that my posts on Ukraine are drawing very little attention……seems readers have lost all interest in the conflict while the US packs money into the country at an alarming rate.

The focus now is on China and Taiwan….gives the armchair analyst lots to write about (for now)….

For a couple of years now we have been told that China was on the move and becoming a major player in the Pacific……it has been sold as important so much so that Pelosi had to go to Asia and Taiwan especially to illustrate the US commitment to the region.

Pelosi’s most controversial visit is of course with Taiwan…..and she has an explanation (none of which is valid in my opinion)…..

Just minutes after Nancy Pelosi touched down in Taiwan, a piece she wrote for the Washington Post went live. Titled “Why I’m leading a congressional delegation to Taiwan,” Pelosi quite simply explains that very thing. Some key lines:

  • “In the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) accelerating aggression, our congressional delegation’s visit should be seen as an unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom.”
  • “Our visit—one of several congressional delegations to the island—in no way contradicts the long-standing one-China policy [which recognizes, but does not endorse, China’s position that Taiwan is its territory], guided by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the US-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. The United States continues to oppose unilateral efforts to change the status quo.”

“America’s solidarity with Taiwan is more important today than ever—not only to the 23 million people of the island but also to millions of others oppressed and menaced by the PRC [People’s Republic of China].”

“We take this trip at a time when the world faces a choice between autocracy and democracy. As Russia wages its premeditated, illegal war against Ukraine, killing thousands of innocents—even children—it is essential that America and our allies make clear that we never give in to autocrats.”

AS if on cue China responds to Pelosi…..

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement of its own upon Pelosi’s arrival in Taiwan. It reads in part: “Congress, as a part of the US Government, is inherently obliged to strictly observe the one-China policy of the US Government and refrain from having any official exchanges with China’s Taiwan region. China is all along opposed to the visit to Taiwan by US congressional members, and the US executive branch has the responsibility to stop such visit. Since Speaker Pelosi is the incumbent leader of the US Congress, her visit to and activities in Taiwan, in whatever form and for whatever reason, is a major political provocation.”

As for what the White House is saying, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told CNN Pelosi’s visit “is completely consistent with American policy. No change to our One China policy … There should be no reason for them to use this visit as some sort of a pretext for any kind of action that would escalate tensions.”

China reactions……

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the announcements from China were “unfortunately right in line with what we had anticipated,” the Washington Post reports. Kirby said there is no reason for “Beijing to turn this visit, which is consistent with long-standing US policy, into some sort of crisis, or use it as a pretext to increase aggressiveness and military activity in or around the Taiwan Strait.” He added: “We are prepared to manage what Beijing chooses to do. At the same time, we will not engage in saber-rattling.”

Analysts say that while the exercises will temporarily block some Taiwanese ports, China appears to be planning a show of strength but not an invasion of the island, reports the New York Times. But with tensions high, there is a chance that an accidental encounter between the Chinese and Taiwanese militaries that could spark a conflict. In a fiery editorial, the state-run Global Times said “forces like Pelosi” could not stop “full reunification” of the mainland and Taiwan—and she should pay a price for the “reckless” visit. “We should make people like Pelosi understand that Taiwan is not a place where they can visit at will,” the editorial said.

Even the people of Taiwan is not thrilled about Pelosi’s visit……

Many of the island’s 23.5 million people, said Yang, “are saying that she is causing trouble” while many more “do not care much about it.” They were inclined to shrug it off while obsessed with “domestic issues that are much bigger and attracting more attention than Pelosi’s visit.”

With Pelosi now firmly on the disputed Chinese territory, the ball is in China’s court to fire back. There was no doubt her visit would be filled with nothing but upbeat statements and expressions of friendship, but all the happy talk isn’t likely to convince a lot of people on Taiwan that her presence is an unmixed blessing.

This mash-up is starting to look like provocation to me.

Taiwan is a convenient spot to make a stand….if not for Taiwan where would it be?

Nothing more than a simple way to keep cash flowing from treasury to the defense industry.

Once this situation is lost in the headlines….where will we be sending our cash?

Could all this just be a fake?

From the front pages of The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, the Economist, to The New York Times’ Best Sellers List; from CNN and MSNBC to FOX and NEWSMAX; from think tanks to Pentagon planners, congressional testimonies and White House statements: CHINA! So singularly focused and omnipresent has the narrative of the China Threat become, one can be forgiven for forgetting that China is in fact a middle income country of modest capabilities and with no stated intention of doing any harm to Americans or the United States. Further, that China is not bent on world domination; and further still, as shall be clearly demonstrated, even if it secretly were there is a negligible chance of that coming to pass whatever Beijing’s efforts.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-fake-china-threat-and-its-very-real-danger/

Just a thought.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Closing Thought–02Aug22

My regular readers know that I have a series known as ‘Can’t Fix Stupid’ and this year especially a regular ‘stupid’ has been the Rep from Georgia, Taylor-Green….well she is not alone as far as stupid statements go.

The House has passed a ban on certain assault weapons, a feel good bill that has no chance in the Senate, and the Rep. from Colorado, Lauren Boefert has tied the ban on assault weapons with the eating of dogs….

Congress’s stablest genius, Lauren Boebert, appeared on America’s finest news network, NewsMax, to tell the world’s second-crabbiest shitlord, Sebastian Gorka, that banning assault rifles will lead to Americans eating Fido for dinner.

“If the citizenry in America is disarmed, then we are no longer citizens,” Boebert told Gorka, whose suit pocket sported an enormous handkerchief that looked like a crumpled pillowcase. “We are subjects. You know, here in America, we have gourmet treats for puppies. We have these amazing groomers for dogs. Well, in Venezuela, they eat the dogs, and it started because they don’t have firearms.”

It would be very sad for Boebert to have to eat her dog, but I’m disappointed that Mr. Gorka didn’t follow up by asking her how she would go about preparing dog meat. After all, she is a restaurateur of note. Perhaps she could smoke the dog over hickory and applewood chips, or braise it in a red wine reduction.

(boingboing.net)

This ‘new’ batch of babbling buffoons do what they do best….outright lie…..she has taken two separate news items and combined them into one…..

Boefert type of ilk has NO intention of doing what the voter sent them to do….govern.

These people play to the camera….they go to DC to perform not to govern.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–01Aug22

We all know that Trump is a pain in the ass of American society and then there are his cronies in Congress……the very voices of the Trump insurrection. Ever wonder just who is funding these toads and destroyers of the republic we say we love?

If you have ever wondered then the old Professor can help you understand.

In the month of June, as the House January 6 committee revealed alarming new details on former President Donald Trump’s coup attempt, corporate trade groups and Fortune 500 companies donated more than $819,000 to the Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

That’s according to a new analysis provided to Common Dreams by the watchdog organization Accountable.US, which has been tracking corporate contributions to the so-called “Sedition Caucus”—the group of 147 Republican lawmakers who, just hours after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, voted to overturn the 2020 election in an attempt to help Trump maintain his grip on power.

Accountable.US shows that since January 6, 2021, corporate trade organizations and the political action committees of top individual companies have donated a total of $21.5 million to Sedition Caucus members including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Those three lawmakers are among the 23 GOP members of Congress set to join Trump this week at the America First Policy Institute Agenda Summit, an event led by a think tank aligned with the former president. Trump is slated Tuesday to deliver the keynote address at the Washington, D.C. summit, which has been billed as an effort to outline a right-wing agenda as the former president gears up for another run.

McCarthy and Scalise have been the top recipients of corporate donations since January 2021, bringing in $701,000 and $617,500 respectively from corporate interests, some of which made a show of condemning the January 6 attack and voicing support for the democratic process.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/07/26/corporate-interests-have-given-215-million-gop-sedition-caucus-jan-6-attack

I read the list and will not use any product or service that these traitorous companies offer…..I may a small voice and may not make much difference but I will not let my money be part of the crap that Trump and his slugs spread.

You do what you think is right….just remember your country deserves better from its elected officials and the companies that depend on the nation for their protection.

If you are interested in where and who donates to Congresws then I have a site for you…..

Shedding light on the Fortune 500 corporations and big corporate lobbyists funding the 2020 Election objectors since January 2021—including those that broke their promises not to donate to their campaigns.

https://accountable.us/projects/corporate-donations-tracker/

The choice is yours.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

More On The Second Amendment

The US House has done a bold move (or is it?)…..

The House passed legislation Friday to revive a ban on certain semi-automatic guns, the first vote of its kind in years and a direct response to the firearms often used in the crush of mass shootings ripping through communities nationwide. Once banned in the US, the high-powered firearms are now widely blamed as the weapon of choice among young men responsible for many of the most devastating mass shootings. But Congress allowed the restrictions first put in place in 1994 on the manufacture and sales of the weapons to expire a decade later, unable to muster the political support to counter the powerful gun lobby and reinstate the weapons ban. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed the vote toward passage in the Democratic-run House, saying the earlier ban “saved lives.”

President Biden hailed the House vote, saying, “The majority of the American people agree with this common sense action.” He urged the Senate to “move quickly to get this bill to my desk.” However, it is likely to stall in the 50-50 Senate, the AP reports. The House legislation is shunned by Republicans, who dismissed it as an election-year strategy by Democrats. Almost all Republicans voted against the House bill, which passed 217-213. The bill comes at a time of intensifying concerns about gun violence and shootings—the supermarket shooting in Buffalo, NY; massacre of school children in Uvalde, Texas; and the July Fourth shootings of revelers in Highland Park, Ill.

The bill would make it unlawful to import, sell, or manufacture a long list of semi-automatic weapons. Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, said it includes an exemption that allows for the possession of existing semi-automatic guns. Reps. Chris Jacobs of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania were the only Republicans to vote for the measure. The Democratic lawmakers voting no were Reps. Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Ron Kind of Wisconsin, and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas. Among the semi-automatic weapons banned would be some 200-plus types of semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s, and pistols. The restrictions would not apply to many other models.

Was this just a move to garner support for the upcoming election…..we all know that it will not fly in the Senate…..so what was this passing all about.

Then there will be the debate on the 2nd amendment……

I know–I know—-haven’t we had enough debate on the guns thing?

I say no because it is an issue that needs resolving one way or the other……

There have been more mass shootings in the last five years than in any other five-year span since 1996.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as an incident where four or more people are injured or killed, there have been 2,403 mass shootings from 2017 to 2021, with 2,495 dead and 10,225 injured. The group’s data reveals a steep rise in recent years: 692 mass shootings in 2021, up 66% from 2019’s total of 417.

As of July 6, the group has recorded 320 mass shootings, putting 2022 on track to finish as one of the deadliest years in US history.

According to the CDC, 124 people die every day in the US in acts of gun violence.

Time for a re-think?

Years ago I made my thoughts known to my readers on the 2nd amendment……

Why The 2nd?

But that is just my opinion on the creation of this amendment….but let’s look deeper shall we?

Amid today’s heated debates about gun laws and the Second Amendment, what many people may not realize is that the phrase “the right to keep and to bear arms” is older than the Bill of Rights. It was penned years before the United States won its independence from England. 

In 1779, Founding Father and future president John Adams wrote this phrase at his law office in Quincy, Mass., as he drafted the Massachusetts Constitution — the oldest in the world. He did so a decade before the phrase appeared in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

James Madison argued on behalf of an armed citizenry as a bulwark to federal overreach in Federalist No. 46, published in 1788 as debate took place over shape of the new American government.

A national army of 25,000 to 30,000 men “would be opposed by a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands,” wrote the statesman often dubbed “Father of the Constitution.”

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/gun-laws-story-right-keep-bear-arms

That was from the FOX point of view…..now let’s look elsewhere…..

The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Responsible readings of this sentence note that it locates gun rights within the framework of militia service, not as an individual entitlement. By contrast, the 5th Amendment, ratified the same year, says that “No person” shall be denied due process.

Militias aside, there is also the “keep and bear” part of the 2nd Amendment to consider. In the founders’ era, to “keep” meant to own and possess something inside one’s home, while “bear arms” referred specifically to shouldering a musket or rifle in an army or militia.

Nowhere does the amendment declare or suggest a right to “go armed,” the term used in that era for carrying a weapon such as a pistol or dagger, either openly or in secret. Going armed was not legal. It was a form of misdemeanor known as an affray, from the French effrayer, to make afraid. Indeed, many of the new states responded to a disturbing rise in violence in the early republic with more restrictions on those carrying firearms and other weapons.

In part, that uptick in violence can be attributed to dueling, an aristocratic custom that the haughty officers of the Continental Army learned from their British and French peers. While duelists at least had the decency to count 10 paces and take aim before firing, the so-called “blades” of the southwestern frontiers simply swaggered around with pistols and cane swords, demanding that everyone treat them like royalty on pain of a beating or shooting.

Contrary to romantic mythologies about the frontier, neither duelists nor blades were very popular. Then as now, most people just wanted to go about their lives without getting shot, stabbed or bullied. And they were willing to stand up for their right to do so.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-22/gun-rights-control-second-amendment-supreme-court

Just a few more looks into the 2nd amendment….will this end the conversation (if it can be called that)?  Probably not but all aspects of this amendment should be studied.

There has got be common ground and soon…..for daily mass shootings keep happening and we are basically shrugging them off and moving on to something else.

Hopefully you will give the articles a read….and hopefully engage your brain for deeper thought that the shallowness we have today around guns.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”