Then she could have repelled her attacker, or something:
On Tuesday, a five-year-old Kentucky boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister with a gun he'd been given as a birthday present.
The weapon, a small rifle, was manufactured specifically for children's use.
The boy's weapon was a "My First Rifle" .22-caliber gun from Keystone Sporting Arms' youth branch, Crickett. Crickett's website markets itself "especially for youth shooters." The firearms come in several neon colors, and the website even has a "kids corner" featuring pictures of small children with guns.
Because according to the NRA, and the Senators that support them, the answer to guns is more guns. Just like the answer to tax cuts is more tax cuts.....
Kelly Ayotte's Approval Rating Plunges After Vote Against Gun Background Checks
WASHINGTON -- A new poll has New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) down a total of 15 points from her previous approval rating in a survey that followed her vote against requiring background checks for firearms purchases.
Ayotte's plunge underscores the changing politics around gun control and gun safety. In years past, lawmakers worried that a vote for gun control would bring the anger of the National Rifle Association. In the new reality, votes against gun control also carry a political risk, as the Ayotte poll indicates.
Maybe US Senators will start listening to their constituents a little bit more than the ppl that bring bags of campaign cash to their doorsteps.
Barack Obama stupidly thought the Republican Tea Party Whackjob fever "would break" after he totally demolished Mitt Romney in the election. Well, he totally demolished Mitt and the fever didn't break.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) battered Democrats with questions about whether they would support restrictions on the First or Fourth Amendments he claimed were similar to those an assault weapons ban would impose on the Second:
I pose to the senator from California [Sen. Diane Feinstein], would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for congress to specify that the first amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
But Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) obliterated his argument by noting the analogous actual restrictions on the actual First Amendment:
In reference to the question my colleague from Texas asked, would you limit books? Would you name specific books? Yeah. It's constitutional within the ambit of the First Amendment to eliminate child pornography. And we have lots of laws that are very explicit about that. Very explicit. That are constitutional, that have been upheld as constitutional.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) then dealt the final blow with a direct comparison between First and Second Amendment restrictions both intended to protect public safety:
It is hard to imagine that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for somebody to yell fire in a crowded theater but it's not a violation of the Second Amendment to prevent somebody from bringing a hundred-round magazine into a crowded theater in a Aurora, Colorado.
So, Ted Cruz, Texass Republican, born in Calgary, Canada, is an idiot. Presumably this is the primary reason Texans voted for him, because he is also a Harvard-trained lawyer (though not very well trained), which we know Republicans hate because that's exactly what Barack Obama is.
And if Schumer and Whitehouse's arguments didn't put ol' Ted to shame (our lawyers are better than their lawyers, no?), then let me add these two phrases from the amendments in question to try to show the difference:
First Amendment: 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.
Second Amendment: 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
Boy, those guys were smart.
Republicans are not.
And Ted Cruz is their prime example........for today.
Ezra Klein says that the shape of a fiscal cliff deal is clear: only a 37 percent rate on top incomes, and a rise in the Medicare eligibility age. I'm going to cross my fingers and hope that this is just a case of creeping Broderism, that it's a VSP fantasy about how we're going to resolve this in a bipartisan way.
Because if Obama really does make this deal, there will be hell to pay.
(I'll second that motion. - z)
First, raising the Medicare age is terrible policy. It would be terrible policy even if the Affordable Care Act were going to be there in full force for 65 and 66 year olds, because it would cost the public $2 for every dollar in federal funds saved. And in case you haven't noticed, Republican governors are still fighting the ACA tooth and nail which will pitch lower-income seniors into the abyss.
Second, why on earth would Obama be selling Medicare away to raise top tax rates when he gets a big rate rise on January 1 just by doing nothing? And no, vague promises about closing loopholes won't do it: a rate rise is the real deal, no questions, and should not be traded away for who knows what.
I think the answer to the second question is the vanity of bipartisanship, which is close to being pathological in Democrats, and says that because they can get a few less crazy Republicans to vote on a bill, even if everyone else around says it's bad, then it is by the very definition of bipartisanship a good bill and must be praised.
The full package of reforms Merkley laid out yesterday add up to a very serious proposal that would curb many of the current minority's worst abuses of the Senate rules, remove most of the blockade facing judicial and executive branch nominees, and transfer some of the pain of filibustering onto the people responsible for the filibuster. (Hey Republicans, that's called "personal resonsibility". - z)
And Merkley appeared quite optimistic that filibuster reform will pass this year.
Two years ago, a package that included several of Merkley's proposals received 44 of the 51 votes necessary to amend the Senate rules at the opening of a new Senate. That time, Merkley explains, "we didn't have the support of leadership." Merkley explains. This time, however, the most powerful man in the Senate has already taken to the floor to apologize for opposing Merkley's first effort, and Merkley and the Senate leadership are working together closely to design the final package.
I urge you to read the whole thing and call our senators if you endorse these common sense changes that will make our United States Senate more Democratic - under any definition of the word - for All.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed having a vote on a proposal he first raised back in 2011 to allow the president to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling.
Sen. Harry Reid moved to bring that proposal to the Senate floor this afternoon for a simple majority vote, and McConnell blocked it.
Reid said McConnell's objection was a "case of Republicans refusing to take yes for an answer."
"This morning the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on this proposal. Now I told everyone that we are willing to have that vote, up-or-down vote," Reid said. "Now the Republican leader objects to his own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill."
John Boehner, who is not now nor has ever been a Senator, has nonetheless decided to insert himself into the debate over Senate rules reform. Boehner threatened to ignore all bills coming from the Senate passed with the help of a reformed filibuster, which is really all bills, since ending the filibuster on the motion to proceed would apply to all legislation.
Boehner said that Reid's threat "is clearly designed to marginalize Senate Republicans and their constituents while greasing the skids for controversial, partisan measures."
He added, "Any bill that reaches a Republican-led House based on Senate Democrats' heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival."
(Insert playing of World's Smallest Violin here. - z)
Though the rules change would not occur until next year, Boehner suggested that it might poison the atmosphere even sooner, "at a time when cooperation on Capitol Hill is critical."
47% of Congress Members Millionaires - a Status Shared by Only 1% of Americans
47% of Congress is in the 1% of America's wealthiest citizens. No wonder they act the way they do...
UPDATE: Instead of 1%-er Congressmen and Senators taking care of them and theirs, how about a balanced approach to the economy as proposed by Elizabeth Warren, soon to be a peer of Senators Bennet and Udall?
1. End the war in Afghanistan that costs $2 Billion a week.
2. Tax Billionaires at a rate at least as much as their secretaries.
3. Make targeted cuts in defense and end subsidies for the most profitable corporations in America.
1. Violence Against Women Act re-authorization.
2. The American Jobs Act.
3. Tax cuts for working families.
4. Veterans Job Corps Act. Who could oppose hiring more veterans as cops, firefighters and national-parks workers? Who could be against helping veterans apply their military training to earn civilian occupational licenses? Republicans, that's who.
5. Sequestration. Frankly, I say let the damned Bush tax cuts expire and let the Pentagon budget be subject to cuts that are long overdue. We do not need and can't afford our current Military-Industrial complex. And let the Bowles-Simpson B.S. be banned to the ash heap of history.
6. Farm Bill.
7. Wind energy tax credit. Do we need any more proof that Republicans hate workers and hate the Middle Class? Colorado's farmers are true entrepreneurs, are the backbone of rural small business, yet are being ignored, punished, driven to destruction by continued Republican inaction.
Senate Passes FAA Authorization Bill with Anti-Union Elements
Despite fierce opposition from major transit unions, the Senate yesterday gave final approval to the FAA Authorization bill, a five-year extension that removes uncertainty from the FAA, approves a next-generation air traffic monitoring system and, in Harry Reid's telling, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. But unions were unhappy about changes to labor law insisted upon by House Republicans, and they expressed betrayal at the hands of Senate Democrats. (Ho hum. -Ed.)
But 37 Democrats supported the bill, including Commerce Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and top leadership members Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. Here were the 15 Democrats who opposed it:
Not worthy of mention to Dayen were Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both of whom voted for a bill that makes it more difficult for unions to exist and for middle class workers to maintain quality employment and working conditions. Both senators will give justification for their votes on this bill and say it's just one vote of many.
But the pattern is clear and well-established with our 2 Democratic senators. And it is nothing to write home about. Though Mark Udall writes, and tries, he continues to be a milquetoast who compares quite poorly to his blood-relation senator from New Mexico. Bennet, like his political benefactor Bill Ritter, has shown a complete disregard for labor and unions.
Not to be outdone, freshman Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) offered an amendment that would impose a lifetime ban on lawmakers ever becoming federal lobbyists.
Since the Senator presumably would apply this rule to all Americans, and knowing he would only submit amendments with the full intent they pass congress and are signed into law, one can only presume he will hold himself to this same strict standard. Bottom line: I expect that Michael Bennet will hold to this principle and never become a lobbyist once his term of office completes.
Or, this could be just another P.R. move by a senator who has learned the broken ways of our capital well enough to denounce them at the same time he uses them to his political advantage. I certainly hope it's the former and not the latter....I fear he would be a much better lobbyist than senator.
My friend told me after the State Of The Union that the Republicans looked like a bunch of "miserable old sourpusses."
"How so?" I asked.
"He is talking about uplifting stuff and they look miserable."
I wasn't even planning to watch, but happened upon it as it was just starting. The terminal, chronic negativity of the GOP was on full display. They were not moved by any rhetoric and were not inspired by any of The President's ideas. If the DNC wants some ideas for TV spots, they should just take the closeups of Republican leaders during that speech and run them in an infinite loop.
Colorado's sublimely daft Doug Lamborn decided he had to stand up for something besides killing the EPA and Big Bird, so he played the ignorance card and skipped the address. Let's imagine the reaction to a Democrat doing that to President Bush. Unfortunately, the voters in CD-5 will never look back on their decision to choose Lamborn over Jay Fawcett in '06. (Hi, Jay!)
Despite Mark Udall's continuing, lame attempts to foster bipartisanship (God Damn it, Mark, it's Dead, and you're the Last to know! (Even the Supes couldn't contain their pettiness and only a quorom of them showed up. ) If Udall has put this much effort into condemning the automatic filibuster used by Senate Republicans on almost every vote they take, no one would ever know it.
[I put most of the text beneath the fold while promoting this diary - WD]
Last week, before Andrew Romanoff endorsed Joe Miklosi in CD6, there was a diary comment on Pols which stated "Romanoff's Senate campaign was a disaster". That comment got under my skin, so I will set the record straight, for the sake of the tens of thousands of his supporters, as well as for the 2012 elections in Colorado. That may sound incongruous coming from one of Senator Bennet's earliest and most ardent supporters -- please hear me out.
First, a fast review of what happened, for those living under a rock, or out-of-state, from 2009-2010. Romanoff's Senate campaign was a study in contrasts. There were epic mistakes made, but in many ways, it was wildly successful considering its tiny fraction of financial resources. The vast majority of activists and staffers who worked on it have every reason to be proud of what they accomplished.
Senator Michael Bennet is desperate for a bipartisan budget agreement to hide behind. An irrational exuberance for bipartisanship must have been one of the conditions for his job. More likely, I still think he's afraid to actually make a policy decision that will get him a yucky Denver Post Editorial. So much for that (D) behind his name, because that forever makes him a target of the Dan Haley/Dean Singleton Hydra. I don't get our leaders' reticence to act like Democrats here in Colorado: (D) must stand for Defensive in this state.
So, who shall this inexperienced Senator be bi with on the budget?
The Gang of Six simply didn't finish the job, and indeed, it was built to not finish the job, with Republicans desirous to drag out talks so Senate Democrats looked like they didn't have a plan. In this sense it was no different than the Max Baucus-led Gang of Six on the health care law.
Bennet has constantly complained that DC is broken, yet time and again he has deferred to the status quo and ensured that those who broke the system are able to keep it broken. The Baucus Health care "product" was horribly weak and Republicans kept nitpicking at it even after the bipartisan gang had an "agreement". The current debate to bring the budget into balance has all the same dynamic, and a Republican Party that continues to deceive even as they pretend to negotiate in good faith with their peers.
Bennet seemingly couldn't resist another shot at bipartisanship despite its repeated failures. It's just as likely he doesn't have the fortitude to take a real stand in the debate. Or maybe he just doesn't want to do anything that could piss anyone off.
Fat chance of that in this day and age.
Bennet shouldn't think his opponents will change a 100% successful strategy of PNK'ing D's and perverting democracy in the budget and deficit discussions. Why would they? Yes, Senator Bennet is green, but he's been in the Senate long enough to see the dominant pattern. He shouldn't trust Republicans on the budget and shouldn't be allowed to pass off his decisions to another round of dysfunctional bipartisanship. Time for Bennet to lead for once and show voters at least some of what they voted for.
On September 21, 2009,
the Second Circuit made an important decision on a case known as
Connecticut vs American Electric Power. Without going into too much detail, this was a case several groups like the Audubon society were trying to stop coal plant emissions because it was harming the value of their land trusts. The lower court ruled as other courts have, that Climate Change was part of the political realm, not the courts.
However, the appellate court overturned this decision on the grounds that the Energy company were causing a public nuisance, and nuisance cases have been heard by courts for decades.
"Nowhere in their complaints do plaintiffs ask the court to fashion a comprehensive and far-reaching solution to global climate change, a task that arguably falls within the purview of the political branches. Instead, they seek to limit emissions from six domestic coal-fired electricity plants on the ground that such emissions constitute a public nuisance that they allege has caused, is causing and will continue to cause them injury."
Justice Elena Kagan also questioned the scope of the case, refuting Underwood's argument that public nuisance pollution suit was like any other pollution suit. "All those other pollution suits that you've been talking about are much more localized affairs. One factory emitting discharge into one stream-they don't involve these kinds of national/international policy issues ... I mean, there's a huge gap, a chasm between the precedents you have and this case, isn't there?"
Justice Ruth Ginsburg, meanwhile, questioned the court's jurisdiction in setting standards for emissions. "Asking a court to set standards for emissions sounds like the kind of thing that EPA does," she said. "The relief you're seeking seems to me to set up a district judge, who does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super-EPA."
Bondeism started as a way for me to highlight the nitwittery of the Republicans in the 111th Congress. They say and do really gob smacking things and I post about comparing them to that gormless but loveable hillbilly Jethro Bodine. But I have to wonder if I have actually, through some unintended and accidental sorcery called this disease into reality (I'm probably taking too much on myself with that, still)?
It is one thing to misinterpret the Constitution, it is open for interpretation and people can be honestly wrong, but it is quit another for a Member of Congress in a leadership position to propose action that is completely outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Which is exactly what Eric Cantor is doing.
He is proposing and will force the House to bring to a vote a measure he is calling the "Government Shutdown Prevention Act". What this Act will say is that if the Senate does not pass a budget measure by April 6th, then HR 1, the Republicans draconian and job slaughtering bill (which, by the way the Senate has already voted down) will become the law of the land.
I hear you all going "But, but, but... Doesn't the Senate have to pass a bill and the President sign it for it to be law?" Why, yes, yes it does. It seems that the raven haired, square jawed Virginia Republican who is the House Majority Leader does not understand how the body he has been part of for a decade now works.
If there were an "All Time Jethro Bodineism Award" it is certain that Rep. Cantor would be earning himself a place in the nominees. It is easy to dismiss this as insane and a stunt, but I see a bigger picture emerging among Republicans nation wide.
The lawless behavior of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin has shown that he and his Republicans have a shocking disregard for the laws of their state. They have broken and bent the rules to pass their union busting bill and have even defied a court order in the implementation of the law.