Feed aggregator

'Green News Report' - March 28, 2013

Brad Blog - Thu, 03/28/2013 - 16:55


 

IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: Scotland has a message for Donald Trump's hot air on wind farms; The IMF has a message for the oil industry (and they're not gonna like it); PLUS: A whole lotta frackin' going on --- from PA to CA, new revelations --- and earthquakes --- crack the fracking industry's facade ... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

Link: Embed:

Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): Iceland baffled by Chinese tycoon's Arctic golf resort; How US can shift from oil & gas; Iraqi oil now mostly China’s; Solar energy brings voters to the polls in Kenya; Republican mayor leads CA city to nation's first solar energy mandate; Water wars: NM farmers vs. fossil fuel industry; Another bleak drought season for U.S.; Red states use more energy than blue states; UK's record weather extremes linked to Arctic sea ice loss; White House supports relaxing nuke rules; Rat poison manufacturer fights EPA ban ... PLUS: "You Can Have More Fossil Fuel. Or You Can Have Water. Your Choice." ... and much, MUCH more! ...

STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S 'GREEN NEWS REPORT'...

'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (Stuff we didn't have time for in today's audio report)...

  • New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
  • Essential Climate Science Background:

  • Categories: Brad Blog

    A Big Gay KPFK 'BradCast'!: Prop 8, DOMA & More!

    Brad Blog - Wed, 03/27/2013 - 21:54

    It's been a big gay week at the U.S. Supreme Court! So it seemed time to call on my friend Mike Rogers of RawStory.com to join me on the KPFK BradCast to talk about it all.

    Rogers has joined me over the years for various 'Big Gay Hours' on the radio --- going all the way back to the darkest anti-gay years of 2004 and 2005 when the campaign against marriage equality had first been weaponized by the Republican Party. So it is with some joy that we were able to mark the extraordinary victories, and speed with which they have happened, for the gay community, as well as for those of us in the constitutional conservative community who believe in things like Equal Protection under the Law, etc.

    We discussed both the CA Prop 8 and DOMA hearings this week at SCOTUS, how we all got here, and what has become of some of those closeted gay politicians who fought against gay rights and inspired Rogers to become an investigative blogger, open his old BlogActive.com site and begin reporting (and outing) the hypocrites standing in the way of equality for all. His work, outing folks such as Sen. Larry Craig and others, eventually helped to inspire Kirby Dick's 2009 documentary Outrage (in which he is featured).

    We played and discussed some of the clips from this week's hearings, including some of the shameful performances from Justice Antonin "Just Makin' Shit Up Again" Scalia, Prop 8 proponent attorney Charles Cooper and the Obama Administration's horrible Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

    I also covered a bit of the mysterious Florida Election cyberhack story out of Miami-Dade (and a new clue to the mystery), and Desi Doyen joined me to have a laugh at the Tennessee "conservatives" who've suddenly found an amusing reason to finally give a damn about mountaintop removal mining, and for the latest Green News Report...

    Download MP3 or listen online below...
    [See post to listen to audio]


    Categories: Brad Blog

    Calling Bullshit (Again) on Holder's 'Concern' About 'Too Big to Jail' Banks on 'Ring of Fire' [VIDEO]

    Brad Blog - Wed, 03/27/2013 - 08:05

    A week or two ago, after seeing Attorney General Eric Holder, in Senate testimony, pretend that he was "concerned" about a lack of prosecution of big banks due to their being too large, I described his claims, in a bit of a rant here as "complete bullshit".

    Over the weekend, I spoke (via a very bad web cam) to Mike Papantonio on Ring of Fire about that very issue...


    Categories: Brad Blog

    'Green News Report' - March 26, 2013

    Brad Blog - Tue, 03/26/2013 - 17:53


     

    IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: Water wars in the U.S.; Bad year for butterflies; ExxonMobil fined (barely) for Yellowstone River pipeline spill; Russia stockpiles snow for the 2014 Winter Olympics; PLUS: Apple computers goes renewable ... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

    Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

    Link: Embed:

    Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

    IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): World’s Most Powerful Private Supercomputer Won’t Cure Cancer, But Will Find Oil Super Fast; Ocean warming has accelerated in past 15 years; Scientists work to create fuel from CO2; Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss; Fracking companies win WY disclosure suit; IG: DOE mismanaged stimulus-backed climate program; Peru declares environmental state of emergency; Canada must leave tar sands in the ground: study ... PLUS: Trump trumped: Scottish government approves windfarm opposed by Donald Trump ... and much, MUCH more! ...

    STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S 'GREEN NEWS REPORT'...

    'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (Stuff we didn't have time for in today's audio report)...

  • New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
  • Essential Climate Science Background:

  • Categories: Brad Blog

    Absentee Ballot Cyberhack in FL Offers Disturbing Lessons About Vote-by-Mail and Internet Voting

    Brad Blog - Mon, 03/25/2013 - 19:14

    One month ago, The Miami Herald's Patricia Mazzei unleashed an excellent investigative report on an attempted series of online cyberhacks of absentee ballot requests prior to last August's primary election in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

    Mazzei's article describes the mysterious attempt by someone to request more than 2,500 absentee ballots for elections in three different Miami-Dade districts using anonymous proxy Internet Protocol (IP) addresses from foreign countries to hide the real identity of the requester. A grand jury looked into the matter [PDF] of the "phantom" requests, but was hamstrung by the fact that they were not told --- the article says it was due to administrative confusion --- that the initial IP addresses used to make the absentee ballot requests were actually not from overseas, but local to Miami-Dade. Had prosecutors had that information, they might have been able to zero in on the culprits, rather than close the investigation late last year without identifying a suspect.

    The case has now reportedly been reopened, but the length of time since the initial event may have allowed the trail run cold. Hopefully we will find out soon.

    Last week, the story suddenly received a lot of fresh attention after it was picked up by NBC News' Gil Aegerter who describes what happened as the "first known case" of such a cyberattack on a U.S. election.

    Setting aside, for now, the point as to whether this is the first such attack --- I've reported quite a bit of evidence of several others over the years (the NBC report links to a number of stories I've broken on these matters, including one of my stories at ComputerWorld in 2007 describing a malicious virus that struck Sarasota's contested 2006 Special Election for the U.S. House where some 18,000 votes ultimately disappeared from the touch-screen voting machines) --- there are a few key points and lessons from this story which I'd like to underscore, despite the fact that the mainstream corporate coverage has been pretty decent here for a change.

    Additionally, one of several key remaining mysteries in the story --- one that I've been trying to make sense over the past several weeks, since learning of the story --- may now have an answer, or at least a new and troubling clue...

    Potential Clue to One of the Story's Central Mysteries

    Aside from the identity of the failed "bad guy(s)" here, and why the prosecutors weren't originally notified about the Miami-Dade IP addresses in the first place, there has been another major "unknown" in the story originally headlined by The Miami Herald as "The case of the phantom ballots: an electoral whodunit".

    That "unknown" has been how the scheme was supposed to have affected the elections in question, had it not been discovered and stopped. Since the absentee ballot requests were made on behalf of "infrequent voters" (who would otherwise be unlikely to show up to vote in person), and scheduled to be sent to their normal address where they are registered, how would anybody then be able to use those ballots to game the elections with fraudulent votes?

    "It doesn’t make any sense to me why someone would do that, because you’d still need the person to [vote for you]," said one of the NJ-based consultants for two of the candidates (brothers) involved in two of the races.

    "Had the requests been filled," Miami Herad's Mazzei goes on to suggest, "short of stealing the ballots from mailboxes, the campaigns would have been able to flood the targeted voters with phone calls, fliers and home visits to try to sway their vote."

    "Persuade enough of them," she suggests, "and you might flip the race."

    But that seems a fairly sloggy way to try and have an effect on election results. On Friday, BlackBoxVoting.org's Bev Harris offers up a more reasonable (and disturbing) scheme which could have been planned here, had the operation not been interrupted before it fully played out.

    She points out that the printing and mailing of absentee ballots is generally jobbed out to third-party contractors by elections officials. The third-parties are given the database of voters who have requested absentee ballots and then they take care of the job from there. Often, the company hired for this job is publicly known and vetted, but that contractor sometimes then hires yet another outfit to do the actual work of printing ballot envelopes and mailing them out to voters.

    "If you have a few thousand strategically targeted extra ballots that you know are bogus, and you reroute the database to an off-the-public-record consultant during the print & mail phase, you can deliver those ballots anywhere you want," Harris writes. "They can all be sent to the same address; no one would know."

    "I'm not sure what vendor Miami-Dade County is using to print and mail ballots; some Florida counties use Runbeck, out of Arizona by way of Tampa. But regardless of who they use, it isn't the Miami-Dade elections people who actually do the mailing. Whoever does the print & mail phase has both the absentee request database and total control over where absentee ballots go."

    The scheme, as Harris envisions it then, would require a "bad guy" to make the absentee ballot requests and an accomplice either at the final print and mail outfit --- or somewhere else along the chain of custody of the absentee ballot database --- to change the addresses where those illegitimately requested ballots were to be sent. As prosecutors are said to be looking into this case again, they may want to ask some questions to whoever might have receive access to that absentee ballot request database.

    See the BBV article for a bit more background on some of the shady players who can be found in the absentee ballot print and mailing business, as well as a few more details on potential suspects in the FL case revealed by common threads between the three elections in question.

    The several other points that I wanted to flag here are as follows:

    Vote-by-Mail is a Terrible Idea

    • We have long decried the many perils of absentee balloting and Vote-by-Mail (VBM) elections. This latest FL hack points out just another reason why VBM is always troubling and, far and away, the most frequent place where ballot fraud is known to occur. Republicans love to suggest that (Democratic) voters are committing fraud by misrepresenting themselves at the polling place --- thus, draconian, disenfranchising polling place Photo ID restrictions are needed, they pretend. But they know they are lying. That type of fraud is incredibly rare. They know that most of this type of chicanery, where it exists, is done via absentee balloting, which polling place Photo ID restrictions that Republicans are pushing in state after state, does absolutely nothing to deter.

    Adding in the points raised by Harris about how absentee ballot databases are often processed outside of public oversight, and you've got another reason to be concerned. Such ballots, she notes, "need never be mailed at all," if a bad operator decides to game an election in this way.

    You Call That a 'Safeguard'?!

    The Miami Herald story offered one disturbing revelation that I haven't seen commented upon elsewhere. Moreover, it's reported as a "feature", as opposed to a "bug" in the Miami-Dade online absentee ballot request system.

    "There are other safeguards, too," Mazzei notes in describing how the attack was stymied when the software flagged the suspicious activity as coming from several single IP addresses. "When a voter submits an absentee request online, Miami-Dade doesn’t automatically send a ballot. The request is reviewed by an elections department staffer, who must manually sign off on sending it."

    That is considered a "safeguard"?! I'd consider that very troubling, frankly. It means that one election official can determine whether or not any number of voters actually receive the absentee ballot they've requested. It sounds like a great way for a "bad guy" election insider to suppress the votes of just about anybody they may choose.

    The Most Disturbing Aspect: The Menace of Internet Voting

    • The real message in this story is not about the perils of online registration and absentee ballot requests systems, even though that has, understandably, been at the center of most of the coverage. The real message here is about the dangers of using the Internet for voting! The push for online voting has, insanely, been increasing over the past year or so. We've taken to describing it as the Internet Voting Virus as it spreads to places like California, where even Democrats are ignoring virtually every world-class computer science and security expert in order to push for this horrible idea.

    In the NBC report, a number of the experts we've turned to over the years in our own stories and interviews here are quoted trying to offer those same warnings again, in the wake of what happened in the case of the failed online absentee ballot requests.

    J. Alex Halderman, the University of MI computer science professor behind the successful remote hack of a mock Internet Voting system, which had been set to be used in a real election in Washington D.C. the following month in 2010, and the hack of a touch-screen voting machine that turned it, literally, into a game of Pac Man, tries to warn that the failed cyberattack in Florida was just the tip of the iceberg.

    He explained to NBC's Aegerter that "an attack somewhat more sophisticated than the one in Florida, completely within the norm for computer fraud these days, would likely be able to circumvent the checks."

    David Jefferson of Livermore National Laboratory, and a member of the Board of Directors at Verified Voting, once again warns, as he has many times here in the past, that the security of electronic voting and registration systems currently in use, as well as the insane schemes currently being used and planned for Internet Voting, are serious threats to national security. "The legitimacy of government depends on it being impossible for single parties to change the results of elections," he told Aegerter.

    "Whoever did this is clearly capable of engaging in online registration fraud (in states such as Maryland and Washington with weak authentication)," Jefferson told me via email some weeks ago, "or online vote fraud."

    Jeremy Epstein, a senior computer scientist at SRI International, warns about the perils of Internet Voting in the NBC story as well. "The overwhelming consensus of the computer science community is don’t do it, it’s a bad idea,"

    And, finally, Cleveland State University's Election Integrity expert and law professor Candice Hoke cut right to the chase, warning that while politicians may see Internet Voting as a way to increase turnout for their voters and election officials may see such schemes as a way to save money on polling sites, ballot printing costs and manual labor, the real costs to democracy ultimately outweigh everything else.

    "It’s cheap," she said, "if you don’t care whether elections are stolen."

    * * *Please support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system, as available from no other media outlet in the nation --- now in our TENTH YEAR! --- with a donation to help us keep going (Snail mail, more options here). If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in return! Details right here...


    Categories: Brad Blog

    NRA Grades For Senators

    NRA Watch - Mon, 03/25/2013 - 17:09

    Looking at this article here will show you the NRA Grades for senators all over the United States.

    Categories: NRA Watch

    NRA Robocalls In Newtown Spark Outrage From Local Gun Control Group

    NRA Watch - Mon, 03/25/2013 - 17:04

    Huffington Post- March 22, 2013

    WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association came under fire late Thursday from members of a gun-control advocacy group in Newtown, Conn., after reports surfaced of Newtown residents receiving robocalls and pro-gun postcards from the NRA.

    The advocacy group, the Newtown Action Alliance, posted a Facebook message Thursday about the calls, prompting responses from people who said they’d received communications from the NRA and were upset by them.

    “I received one of these,” Newtown resident Christopher Wenis wrote on Facebook Thursday afternoon. “I was insulted and offended.” Wenis told The Huffington Post in an interview Friday night that in the 36 hours since he first posted his response, he received two more robocalls from the NRA, one later on Thursday night and one on Friday evening.

    “I’ve got a 5-year-old son who went to preschool on the Sandy Hook Elementary School campus,” Wenis explained. “And this was a really hard week for me on a lot of levels. These calls were the very last thing I needed.”

    More-

    Categories: NRA Watch

    Bloomberg, mayor group behind $12 million gun control campaign

    NRA Watch - Mon, 03/25/2013 - 16:47

    NBC News- March 23, 2013

    By Becky Bratu

    A $12 million television ad campaign paid for by Mayors Against Illegal Guns hopes to push gun control efforts including comprehensive background checks.

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the group’s co-chair, announced the ad buy Saturday. The New York Times reported Bloomberg is financing the campaign.

    “I don’t think there’s ever been an issue where the public has spoken so clearly, where Congress hasn’t eventually understood and done the right thing,” Bloomberg told NBC News’ David Gregory in an interview that will be broadcast Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

    More-

    Categories: NRA Watch

    New Orleans judge rules statute forbidding felons from having firearms unconstitutional after ‘fundamental right’ amendment

    NRA Watch - Mon, 03/25/2013 - 16:41

    New Orleans Times-Picayune- March 21, 2013

    By Claire Galofaro

    An Orleans Parish judge on Thursday ruled that the state statute forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, in the wake of a constitutional amendment passed last year that made the right to bear arms a fundamental one in Louisiana. The issue will now go straight to the state Supreme Court, which must decide whether the statute infringes on Louisiana citizens’ now-enhanced right to gun possession. 

    Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny on Thursday dismissed the charge against one felon, but took his decision a step further than another judge faced with a similar decision earlier this month.

    Derbigny ruled that the entire statute — RS 14:95.1 — was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a “fundamental right,” on the same level as freedom of speech or religion.

    A court interpreting any law restricting a fundamental right — as gun ownership is now considered — must approach it with “strict scrutiny,” the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

    More-

    Categories: NRA Watch

    Texans support assault weapons ban, mixed on Cornyn

    NRA Watch - Mon, 03/25/2013 - 16:36

    Public Policy Polling- January 30, 2013

    Texas voters don’t like Barack Obama. 47% of voters approve of him to 51% who disapprove. 39% of them, including 67% of Republicans, would like to see him impeached from office.

    Texas voters do like the NRA. 46% view it favorably to 40% with an unfavorable opinion. 47% of voters support its proposal to put armed police officers in every school in the country, to 39% who oppose it. Even 41% of Democrats support that initiative.

    Overall on the issue of guns Texans say they trust the NRA over President Obama by a 47/43 margin.

    And despite all of that 49% of Texas voters support an assault weapons ban to just 41% opposed to it. Most Democrats support it, independents favor it by a 53/34 margin, and even among Republicans 23% support it. We’ve found support for the assault weapons ban everywhere we’ve polled it, but it’s particularly striking to see that voters favor it in a pro-gun, anti-Obama state like Texas.

    10 years into his time in the US Senate, John Cornyn is still a blank slate to a surprisingly large percentage of Texas voters. They’re closely divided on his job performance with 34% of voters approving of him and 36% disapproving, with 30% not having an opinion either way.

    More-

    Categories: NRA Watch

    Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper signs landmark gun-control bills

    NRA Watch - Mon, 03/25/2013 - 16:34

    NBC News-

    By Matthew DeLuca

    Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed landmark new gun laws on Wednesday expanding background checks on gun purchases and limiting the size of ammunition magazines, placing the traditionally firearm-friendly state among the handful to pass new restrictions in the wake of the shooting in Newtown, Conn.

    The Democratic governor defended the legislation in a press conference on Wednesday. Hickenlooper said he had found widespread support among state residents for broadening background checks, and dismissed the idea that politicians had been pressured from outside the state.

    “This didn’t come from the White House,” Hickenlooper said.

    Hickenlooper’s signature came the day after the head of Colorado’s Department of Corrections, Tom Clements, was shot and killed in his home, apparently after he answered a ring at his front door, authorities said.

    More-

    Categories: NRA Watch

    Toon of the Moment: 'Exhausting Every Other Possibility'...

    Brad Blog - Sat, 03/23/2013 - 14:34

    We desperately could use a toon or two around here of late. Sorry this is not a happier or funnier one though...

    As to the extra punchline at bottom right, it's a reference to the quote misattributed to Churchill: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

    And, by the way, a better name for "Carbon Tax" is "Pollution Tax".

    Yes, companies who dump huge amounts of pollution --- tons and tons of it --- into our atmosphere every single day ought not be able to do it for free, as they do now, since we all have to pay the price of cleaning it up, as we are now doing in spades.

    [Hat-tip Joe Romm at Climate Progress]


    Categories: Brad Blog

    Horrific: Birth Defects, Cancer Rates Tied to U.S. Use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq

    Brad Blog - Fri, 03/22/2013 - 16:07

    If you haven't noticed, of late, Desi Doyen --- the Managing Editor of The BRAD BLOG's Green News Report and my co-host on that nationally syndicated radio feature --- has been guest hosting The Young Turks' nightly online video show quite a bit of late. (She did so several times already this week, and will be back again tonight. You can watch tonight's airing right here from 9p-11p ET / 6p - 8p PT.)

    One of the segments from last night's episode, while disturbing, is worth flagging at least briefly here, as its an issue we've touched on throughout the years, going back to the earliest years of the Iraq War. It's also one that has been under-covered and under-investigated by the mainstream corporate media.

    The use of depleted uranium, a byproduct of the nuclear power industry, in U.S. weaponry is believed by many to be tied to an alarming increase in birth-defects in Iraqi children, as well as cancer rates in members of the U.S. military. While some studies report no significant health risks due to the use of such weaponry, a lack of long-term studies leaves the issue, for now, an open question --- at the very least. Truthout's Mike Ludwig reported this week that "The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has estimated that 1,000 to 2,000 metric tons of depleted uranium was fired during the 2003 war in Iraq," and that clean-up costs for some 300 to 365 sites where "depleted uranium contamination was identified by Iraqi authorities" is estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars.

    While the U.S. and British governments "disputed allegations that their weapons have poisoned soldiers and civilians and caused increased rates of cancer and birth defects," as discussed in the segment below from last night's TYT show, the reported rate of birth defects in Fallujah, for example, is now said to be 14 times higher than it was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs there.

    The use of depleted uranium in U.S. weapons is believed by some to be one of the reasons for that alarming statistic, as Desi discussed along with TYT regulars Ana Kasparian and Steve Oh last night. [WARNING: Some of the photos shown in the segment are graphic and disturbing]...

    A couple of the other (less graphic) segments from TYT in which the lovely Desi helps with righteous rants and the raking of various muck include...

    • Amazing backlog of Veteran Benefits begs question as to who actually "supports the troops"? (A particularly sharp, and personal, Desi rant in this one!) Watch it here...

    • "Catfight" breaks out between current and former GOP chairs Reince Priebus and Michael Steele. Watch it here...


    Categories: Brad Blog

    Paralyzed Iraq Vet Tomas Young Discusses His 'Last Letter' to Bush & Cheney, His Decision to Die

    Brad Blog - Thu, 03/21/2013 - 18:05

    Yesterday we published Tomas Young's "Last Letter: A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a Dying Veteran", in which the 33-year old U.S. Army veteran, paralyzed from the chest down during an ambush on a rescue mission in Iraq in 2004, announces his plan to soon allow himself to die, as his physical condition has intolerably deteriorated.

    We included a link to our own interview with Tomas in 2005 when he first came down from Kansas City to "Camp Casey" in Crawford, TX, on his honeymoon, in support of Cindy Sheehan whose son Casey was killed on the same day, in the same city --- 4/4/04 in Sadr City --- where Tomas was shot twice and gravely injured in the unarmored truck his platoon had been sent out in.

    Tomas has been a tremendously heroic and outspoken anti-war voice over the years, as we were reminded once again today during this morning's heart-wrenching episode of Democracy Now! devoted to his story. Phil Donahue, co-director of the 2007 documentary film about Tomas, Body of War, (in which our '05 interview with Tomas is briefly seen) is on hand as well for the discussion. The hour included a live satellite interview with Tomas, who now struggles to speak. His thoughts seem very coherent, but what is left of his body and its functions are clearly breaking down. He is joined by his wife Claudia.

    It is all worth watching, if you can spare the time. The clips from Body of War, especially the one in which Tomas speaks with the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-VA) as they read off the names together of the "Immortal 23" who voted against the Iraq War in the U.S. Senate, are particularly moving.

    This is the story of the Iraq War ten years later --- and how it broke this nation just as surely as it broke Tomas Young's body and eventually his spirit and will to live...

    After the lengthy segment above, Donahue is asked about his plight at MSNBC where he was fired just before the war began, as we would later find out from an internal executive memo, because his show included too many anti-war voices.

    He says the episode reveals "how corporate media shapes our opinions and our coverage."

    "They were terrified of the anti-war voice. And that is not an overstatement," Donahue says. "If you're General Electric, you certainly don't want an anti-war voice on a cable channel that you own. Donald Rumsfeld's your biggest customer!"

    He explains again how he was required to have two pro-war voices for every anti-war voice he had on his show. "I could have [Bush Admin Iraq war hawk and architect] Richard Perle on alone, but I couldn't have Dennis Kucinich," he explains. "I was considered 'two liberals'." That segment can be watched here.

    Finally, in the last moments of the show, Tomas reads his "Last Letter" to Bush and Cheney aloud and answers Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman's question as to whether there is anything that might lead him to change his mind about his decision to soon stop using his feeding tube in order to allow his life to end.

    That video segment, including Tomas' answer to Goodman's question, follows below...

    [Hat-tip Ernie Canning.]


    Categories: Brad Blog

    'Green News Report' - March 21, 2013

    Brad Blog - Thu, 03/21/2013 - 17:32


     

    IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: L.A. to be 100% coal-free; TN conservatives slam mountaintop removal coal mining - by China; NV coal company faked air pollution reports; Green jobs are the fastest growing job sector in the nation; PLUS: Leave it to beavers - 'hero' beaver dam halts oil spill ... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

    Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

    Link: Embed:

    Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

    IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): State Dept. hid ties to Keystone XL pipeline company; Toyota Unveils New I-Road; NOAA: ‘Robust’ independent evidence confirms thermometer measurements; Climate Science Denier Leads House Science Subcommittee; Pope Francis calls for defending environment; Report: Security risks of climate change; Enviro groups criticize Obama's DOE nominee energy industry ties; Polar bear habitat shrinks even more... PLUS: How to cut U.S. gasoline use in half by 2030 ... and much, MUCH more! ...

    STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S 'GREEN NEWS REPORT'...

    'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (Stuff we didn't have time for in today's audio report)...

  • New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
  • Essential Climate Science Background:

  • Categories: Brad Blog

    Tomas Young's 'Last Letter': A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran

    Brad Blog - Wed, 03/20/2013 - 12:29

    NOTE FROM BRAD: On August 28, 2005, I was the first in the national media to interview U.S. Army Specialist Tomas Young at "Camp Casey" in Crawford, TX. He and his then wife Brie had come down from Kansas City on their honeymoon to support Cindy Sheehan, the "Gold Star Mom" who was famously demanding a meeting with George W. Bush. Tomas' unarmored vehicle had been ambushed in Sadr City, Iraq on the same day that Sheehan's son Casey was killed in the same city. The attack left Tomas paralyzed from the chest down.

    Since Bush had refused to meet with Sheehan --- claiming he had already met with her some months earlier, prior to proclaiming those who had died in Iraq had done so for a "noble cause" which he refused to define --- Tomas wanted to find out if he might be able to meet with Bush himself to ask what the "noble cause" was. We came up with the idea to paint a sign to help the media notice his plight. Some of the other veterans who were there as well helped to create the sign and it was, indeed, picked up by AP at the time.

    Some years later, Tomas' story would be told on 60 Minutes, and then in a heart-wrenching 2007 documentary film, Body of War, by Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro. (My interview on the ground at "Camp Casey" with Tomas and Brie is seen briefly in both. The full audio of my interview with them is posted in full at the bottom of this article, after Tomas' letter.)

    He and Brie have since divorced and Tomas remarried last year. Now, ten years this week after the launch of the War on Iraq, what was left of Tomas' body is failing and, as Chris Hedges recently reported, he has decided to let himself die. Now in hospice care, Tomas, who was 25 when we met and is now just 33-years old, plans to end his long fight. He says he will remove his own feeding tube sometime after his first anniversary with his new wife Claudia in April and before the second birthday of his niece in June.

    The following open letter, which Tomas says is his "last", was originally published this week at TruthDig and republished in full here with their permission.

    * * *

    To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
    From: Tomas Young

    I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

    I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all-the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

    I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans-my fellow veterans-whose future you stole...

    Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

    I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to "liberate" Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called "democracy" in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq's oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level-moral, strategic, military and economic-Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

    I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

    I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn't lying a sin? Isn't murder a sin? Aren't theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

    My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

    * * *

    • Read Chris Hedges' 3/10/13 "The Crucifixion of Tomas Young" to learn about Tomas' life, and continuing physical deterioration since the Body of War documentary, and his decision to finally allow himself to die.

    • Audio from my 8/25/05 interview with Tomas Young on The BRAD SHOW (my old syndicated weekend radio program), including the harrowing story of his injury, the experience he had afterward, what brought him to Camp Casey on his honeymoon, and our attempt to paint a sign in hopes of helping the corporate media do the job that America needed them to --- all with the live sounds of Camp Casey in the background --- follows...

    PART 1: Young's story, with then wife Brie (MP3, 22 mins) ...
    [See post to listen to audio]

    PART 2 - More w/ Young, hatching the plan to demand a meeting with George W. Bush (MP3, 14 mins) ...
    [See post to listen to audio]


    Categories: Brad Blog

    'Green News Report' - March 19, 2013

    Brad Blog - Tue, 03/19/2013 - 17:43


     

    IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: On the one hand, Obama moves the environmental ball forward --- on the other hand... not so much; Oil leak in CO; Fish populations rebound (thanks, Big Government!); BP trial update; Abu Dhabi opens world's largest solar plant; Power failure at stricken Fukushima nuke plant; PLUS: Wind turbine sickness caused by anti-wind propaganda ... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

    Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

    Link: Embed:

    Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

    IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): High-resolution charts show carbon impacts skyrocketing; Democratic senators intro legislation to end oil industry tax breaks; March's extreme weather swings; Emergency cleanup at abandoned gold mine; Canada scientists muzzled by Harper Administration; Debunking the Daily Mail -again; Days of promise fade for ethanol ... PLUS: "De-extinction": Why we shouldn't bring back extinct species from the dead ... and much, MUCH more! ...

    STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S 'GREEN NEWS REPORT'...


    Categories: Brad Blog

    Arbitrary and Outrageous Costs for 'Recounts' of Paper Ballot Elections in California Continue to Stymie Citizen Authentication of Results

    Brad Blog - Tue, 03/19/2013 - 09:35

    Early last month, The BRAD BLOG offered an exclusive special report on how a single Registrar of Voters in Fresno County, CA effectively stopped a citizen-organized attempt to confirm the results of last November's Prop 37 initiative dead in its tracks. She was able to stop an attempted post-election hand count of the paper ballots in her county by charging the proponents of the count an outrageous and seemingly arbitrary high price to carry out the count.

    Now, a very similar story is being reported in regard to an attempt to confirm the results of a mayoral race in another California county where the "losing" candidate is said to have lost by just 53 votes. In that case, rather than an outrageous $4,000 per day to count the paper ballots again, as was the case for Prop 37 in Fresno, the candidate has been charged $2,000 per hour for her attempt to verify that the results of her contest were accurately reported by the computer system.

    The much-watched Prop 37 initiative last November, had it passed, would have required Genetically Modified foods to be labeled as such. The measure was opposed by corporations such as Monsanto, DuPont and Hershey with a $44 million propaganda blitz against the landmark initiative in progressive California.

    The proposition's loss surprised supporters of the measure, some of whom joined in a post-election effort to hand-count the paper ballots from the contest in a number of counties to ensure the secretly-tallied computer results were accurate. After hand-counting ballots in Orange and Sierra Counties, where no unusual irregularities were discovered, the effort was stymied in Fresno County by outrageously high and seemingly illegal pricing set for the "recount" by the county's recently-appointed Registrar Brandi Orth.

    As we detailed, while the County Clerk in Orange had charged the proponents a reasonable $600/day for hand-counting ballots, and the Registrar in Sierra had charged just $500/day, Fresno's Orth had attempted to charge some $4,000/day. And that was in addition to a "start up" fee of $14,000 that proponents and Election Integrity advocates were also told they'd need to cough up in cash before a single ballot could be hand-counted there.

    The seemingly arbitrary pricing for confirming the results in Fresno ended up putting the kibosh on the attempted statewide count. As we described in the report, the case echoed a similar attempt by Election Integrity advocates to hand-count paper ballots in a contested Special Election for the U.S. House in San Diego County in 2006. There, the county Registrar had attempted to charge approximately $1.00 per ballot (with some 150,000 cast) to confirm the results. That was in contrast to the .14 per ballot charged by neighboring Orange County for a separate hand-count not long before.

    The extraordinary $2,000/hour costs being charged in Stanislaus County, however, put all of that to shame. And it underscores, once again, how the lack of standards for "recount" pricing make laughable the notion that computer-tallied paper ballots are just fine because "they can always be counted later if there are any questions about results later on."

    As we learn once again in California, where the "recount" laws are actually amongst the most liberal in the country, the ability for citizens to confirm the results of secretly-tallied computer-results after they are certified is no easy feat. It's often impossible. Making the matter more outrageous, a single county clerk can effectively block the entire process...

    According to an excellent report by Ken Carlson at the Modesto Bee, former Riverbank, CA Mayor Virginia Madueño is currently contesting charges leveed by Stanislaus County Registrar of Voters Lee Lundrigan that amount to $20 per ballot, as counted in during a 5-hour hand-count last December.

    Madueño's attorney told Carlson that her client received "written statements" from the Registrar "that the recount would cost $300 an hour, with a $2,400 deposit required each day of the recount."

    In January, however, after the count, the former Mayor received a letter notifying her that a $7,817 balance was owed to the county --- more than three times the estimate she was given before the recount. According to the Bee, that count was not even done by hand. It was carried out on the same oft-failed, easily-manipulated optical-scan computers that tallied the votes in the first place (either correctly or incorrectly. Who knows?)

    There were only about 6,000 votes cast in the entire race, and Madueño only checked about 500 of them from one precinct before calling off the post-election tally.

    Carlson reports the totals now being charged to the candidate are "about 10 times the highest charges assessed by counties in the statewide Proposition 29 recount last year."

    Our report on Prop 37 offered a number of details from Dr. John Maa, the man who filed for and bankrolled that Prop 29 recount. (That measure, had it been successful on the June 2012 ballot, would have added a $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund cancer research.) Maa told The BRAD BLOG that he found "a wide variability of recount costs across the State of California" during both the Prop 29 and Prop 37 counts. (He served as an unofficial adviser on the latter.) He also complained that bills for thousands of dollars in additional costs were sent from two counties after the hand-counts were completed.

    Here are some of the per ballot costs he cited to us from his Prop 29 "recount":

    • Orange County: .29 per ballot
    • Placer County: .94 per ballot
    • Los Angeles County: $2.24 per ballot
    • Sacramento County: $3.86 per ballot

    "As our State does not have a mandatory trigger for an automatic recount in the case of a close contest," Maa told us at the time, "requesting a recount remains the primary strategy to audit the certified results." He said he believed that state "Registrars have misapplied the Elections Code and Secretary of State's instructions about allowable recount expenses." Our report explicitly detailed those expenses in the case of Fresno's pricing for the aborted Prop 37 count.

    "A candidate or recount requester should not be disadvantaged in one county relative to a candidate/requester in a neighboring County where the recount fees can be an order of magnitude less expensive," he said, citing another recent attempted "recount" in a race for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors which, he said, was "cancelled after the recount requester was informed of the very high startup and daily costs for the recount by the San Francisco Elections Office."

    Maa spent approximately $250,000 of his own money in his own attempt to confirm the results of Prop 29. Most citizens who wish to challenge election results are confirm them, do not have that kind of extra cash lying around.

    Tom Courbat, the Election Integrity advocate --- and, incidentally, a 25-year veteran fiscal manager in three different CA counties --- helped lead the Prop 37 count and was outraged by the attempted charges in Fresno where, he said, "democracy...is only available to high-rollers."

    In the recent Modesto Bee report, Madueño's attorney Amber Maltbie echoed Courbat: "Stanislaus County is not a place where ordinary folks will be asking for a recount."

    "Citizens need 'cost containment' of recount costs to ensure every citizen, regardless of his/her economic status, can exercise the basic democratic right to a recount," Courbat told us for the Prop 37 story. "It is the last line of defense in maintaining the democratic operations of our republic."

    Unfortunately, Madueño has now learned that lesson as well in Stanislaus County. Her attorney says the variable rates --- particularly the ability to "blindside" candidates later --- "will have a chilling effect" on those citizens attempting to confirm the results of their own elections.

    Carlson quotes Dennis McCord, who lost a local city council race by eight votes last November as saying he received "conflicting estimates" when inquiring about a post-election count. He was finally told it would cost $12,500 to count the 5,100 votes in his race.

    "It doesn't make sense that they don't know what it cost to recount 5,100 votes," he told Carlson in the Bee. "I would say $12,500 is a lot of money for a city council race. That kind of money could do a lot of good in the community."

    Indeed we noted in our initial report that just one week of counting would have cost the Prop 37 proponents "$38,000 by the end of the first week, $58,000 by the end of the second week and $78,000 by the end of week three," according to Courbat, the former county Finance Director turned Election Integrity advocate.

    Courbat was recently in Sacramento working with a number of other advocates to find a sponsor in the state legislature who might propose a bill to standardize "recount" costs in the state, or, at the very least, require that County Registrars post costs for post-election counts on their websites before elections. He has yet to find a sponsor for such a bill.

    For her part, CA Sec. of State Debra Bowen --- once regarded as a champion of Election Integrity --- has remained disturbingly silent. While her office offered cursory response to our initial inquiries while working on the Prop 37 story, they stopped replying all together when we quoted chapter and verse from state Election Code and state Requirements as to how Fresno's Registrar Orth seemed to be blatantly ignoring both in her charges for a hand-count.

    Bowen's office did not reply to our invitation to appear on our KPFK/Pacifica Radio show to discuss the matter either, though both Courbat and Maa appeared to discuss it. That February 7th interview can be heard here.

    How much longer the mess in CA will continue to block citizens from being able to oversee and authenticate their own election results before either the Sec. of State or the Assembly steps in to do something about it is anybody's guess.

    But, as we noted when we originally reported this story, this issue makes the notion that "we can count paper ballots later, if needed" absolutely absurd. If paper ballots are not publicly hand-counted by actual humans, as per "Democracy's Gold Standard" on Election Night, there is a very good chance that they will never be counted --- by anyone.

    Even in California --- where the recount laws are far more liberal than most of the rest of the country, in a state where any voter may exercise the right of requesting a hand-count, so long as they are willing to foot the actual costs for it --- thanks to a lack of pricing standards, lack of enforcement of the few standards that do exist, and the ability of any Registrar to virtually name any price they like, actual costs be damned, elections here, as in the rest of the country, as noted in February, "are still an exercise in faith and trust in secret vote tallies and the officials who run them" which "hardly seems the way to run the 'world's greatest democracy'".

    * * *Please support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system, as available from no other media outlet in the nation --- now in our TENTH YEAR! --- with a donation to help us keep going (Snail mail, more options here). If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in return! Details right here...


    Categories: Brad Blog

    In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection

    NRA Watch - Tue, 03/19/2013 - 07:18

    Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.

    Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.”

    The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.

    About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.

    “I remember thinking, ‘Cops, I need the cops,’ ” she later wrote in a statement to the police. “He’s going to kill me in my own house. I’m going to die!”

    Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it under a blanket on the couch.  The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her life and quickly directed officers to the scene. As they mounted the stairs with their guns drawn, Mr. Holten surrendered. They found Ms. Holten cowering, hysterical, on the floor.

    For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies.

    Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.

    In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear arms must give ground to the need to protect a woman’s life.

    In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.”

    That resistance is being tested anew in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., as proposals on the mandatory surrender of firearms are included in gun control legislation being debated in several states.

    Among them is Washington, where current law gives judges issuing civil protection orders the discretion to require the surrender of firearms if, for example, they find a “serious and imminent threat” to public health. But records and interviews show that they rarely do so, making the state a useful laboratory for examining the consequences, as well as the politics, of this standoff over the limits of Second Amendment rights.

    By analyzing a number of Washington databases, The New York Times identified scores of gun-related crimes committed by people subject to recently issued civil protection orders, including murder, attempted murder and kidnapping. In at least five instances over the last decade, women were shot to death less than a month after obtaining protection orders. In at least a half-dozen other killings, the victim was not the person being protected but someone else. There were dozens of gun-related assaults like the one Ms. Holten endured.

    The analysis — which crosschecked protective orders against arrest and conviction data, along with fatality lists compiled by the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence — represents at best a partial accounting of such situations because of limitations in the data. The databases were missing some orders that have expired or been terminated. They also did not flag the use of firearms in specific crimes, so identifying cases required combing through court records.

    Washington’s criminal statutes, however, contain a number of gun-specific charges, like unlawful possession of a firearm and aiming or discharging one, offering another window into the problem. Last year, The Times found, more than 50 people facing protection orders issued since 2011 were arrested on one of these gun charges.

    In some instances, of course, laws mandating the surrender of firearms might have done nothing to prevent an attack. Sometimes the gun used was not the one cited in the petition. In other cases, no mention of guns was ever made. But in many cases, upon close scrutiny, stricter laws governing protective orders and firearms might very well have made a difference.

    The Times also looked at several other states without surrender laws. In Minnesota, more than 30 people facing active protection orders were convicted of some type of assault with a dangerous weapon over the last three years, court records show.

    And in Oklahoma, The Times found the case of Barbara Diane Dye.

    Ms. Dye, 40, obtained an emergency order of protection in July 2010, on the same day she filed for divorce from her husband, Raymond Dye, a firefighter. Ms. Dye, who worked as a personal trainer at a gym the couple owned, explained in her petition that since telling her husband she wanted a divorce because of his infidelity, he had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She wrote that she feared he would “have a violent reaction when he receives divorce papers.”

    When asked if there were weapons on the premises, she wrote, “Yes.” In fact, Mr. Dye possessed an arsenal of weapons, which Ms. Dye and her family would later beg the local police to help them deal with, to no avail.

    After obtaining the court order, which was good until a hearing about a lengthier order three weeks later, Ms. Dye went into hiding in Texas but returned to Oklahoma to attend divorce proceedings. Two weeks after obtaining the initial order, she was in a bank parking lot in the city of Elgin when her husband pulled up in his truck, blocking her in.

    Witnesses later told the police that Mr. Dye, 42, tried to drag her into his truck. When she fought back, Mr. Dye brandished a .357 revolver and shot her in the leg. She fell to the ground. Mr. Dye fired several more shots into her, saying, “I love you, I love you,” according to the police report. He then shot himself in the chest with a different gun, a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, and collapsed, dead, onto his wife.

     We kept telling them, ‘He’s got all of these weapons,’ ” said Ms. Dye’s mother, Barbara Burk, a local official who has fought unsuccessfully in Oklahoma for a measure that would give judges issuing protective orders the power to order sheriffs to confiscate weapons and hold them for a “cooling off” period. “Is there nothing you can do?”

    Legislative Landscape

    Intimate partner homicides account for nearly half the women killed every year, according to federal statistics. More than half of these women are killed with a firearm. And a significant percentage were likely to have obtained protection orders against their eventual killers. (A 2001 study, published in Criminal Justice Review, of women slain by intimate partners in 10 cities put that number at one in five.)

    It was in recognition of these converging realities that Congress included a provision in the 1994 crime bill, over the objections of the N.R.A., that barred most people subject to full protective orders filed by intimate partners from purchasing or possessing firearms. In a nod to the concerns of the gun lobby, the statute excluded most people under temporary orders, on the ground that they had not yet had the opportunity to contest the accusations in court.

    The statute, though, is rarely enforced. In 2012, prosecutors nationwide filed fewer than 50 such cases, according to a Times analysis of records from theTransactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research center at Syracuse University that collects federal government data.

    It has, therefore, largely fallen to a state-by-state patchwork of laws to regulate this issue — or not.

    A handful of states have enacted laws requiring that judges order the surrender of firearms when issuing even temporary protection orders. The strictest states, like California, Hawaii and Massachusetts, make it mandatory for essentially all domestic violence orders; others, like New York and North Carolina, set out certain circumstances when surrender is required. In a few other states, like Maryland and Wisconsin, surrender is mandatory only with a full injunction, granted after the opposing party has had the opportunity to participate in a court hearing. Several other states, like Connecticut and Florida, do not have surrender laws but do prohibit gun possession by certain people subject to protective orders.

    Although enforcement remains an issue, researchers say these laws have made a difference. One study, published in 2010 in the journal Injury Prevention, found a 19 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides.

    Washington State has seen several efforts to enact firearm surrender laws. In 2004, Representative Ruth Kagi, a Democrat, introduced a bill mandating the surrender of firearms with temporary protective orders. But after strong opposition from the N.R.A., the bill failed to make it out of committee. The N.R.A.’s lobbyist in the state, Brian Judy, testified that the measure granted “extraordinarily broad authority to strip firearms rights.”

    Gun-rights groups stress that the subjects of temporary orders have not even had the chance to be heard in court, and that many temporary orders do not become full injunctions. Advocates for domestic violence victims counter that the most dangerous moment is when such orders are first issued, and that the surrender of weapons at this stage may be only temporary.

    Nevertheless, in 2010, they decided to lower their ambitions and backed a proposal in the Washington Legislature requiring surrender only after a full protective order was issued, restraining threatening conduct against family members or children of family members. The measure also would have made it a felony to possess a firearm while subject to such an order.

    Once again, the N.R.A. and its allies strenuously objected. The group sent out a legislative alert to its members, who besieged legislators. A veteran gun-rights lobbyist flew in from Florida to meet with Representative Roger Goodman, a Democrat who had introduced the measure.

    Mr. Judy, the state N.R.A. lobbyist, wrote in an e-mail to Mr. Goodman that his organization considered the current Washington law “already bad on this subject.” He added, “It is the N.R.A.’s position that any crime that is serious enough to cause an individual to lose a fundamental constitutional right should be classified as a felony.”

    Ultimately, lawmakers stripped the gun measure out of a broader package of domestic violence legislation.

    Lessons of History

    This year, the issue is pending once again in the Washington Legislature, part of a number of gun-related proposals introduced after the Newtown shooting. The proposed legislation, further narrowed in an attempt to placate the N.R.A., seeks to mirror the language of the federal prohibition, which bars most people under full protective orders from buying or owning weapons. But in an e-mail to House Judiciary Committee members considering the measure, Mr. Judy wrote that the federal law “does not provide adequate protection” and argued that individual firearm rights were more broadly protected in Washington’s State Constitution than in the Second Amendment.

    The bill seemed on the verge of being scuttled as the N.R.A. pushed to amend it in a way that supporters argued would render it meaningless, but House Democrats managed to close ranks and pass it. It faces a much steeper climb in the Republican-controlled State Senate, where the N.R.A. wields greater influence.

    The issue has also gained traction in Colorado — a traditional power base for the gun lobby but also the state where 12 people were shot to death and 58 were wounded at a movie theater in July. A measure that would require the surrender of firearms in protection-order cases is part of a gun-control package passed by the State Senate last week, though not a single Republican voted for it.

    And in Congress, Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, introduced a bill last week that would expand the federal prohibition to include temporary orders and current or former “dating partners.”

    Even so, across the country, any suggestion of a broad shift must be tempered by history.

    In the mid-1990s, Wisconsin became one of the first states to require the surrender of firearms with full protective orders. But in 2010, seeking to strengthen enforcement, advocates for domestic violence victims pushed for the statewide adoption of procedures that had been successful in a few counties. Among a host of provisions, people subject to protective orders would have been required to list their firearms and surrender them to the county sheriff or a third party within 48 hours.

    The N.R.A. mobilized, calling the measure “a blatant violation of Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights” in an alert to its members. Jordan Austin, an N.R.A. lobbyist, expanded in his testimony on the bill before an Assembly committee: “Once a person has an injunction issued against him, he is already a prohibited person. He cannot, under the Fifth Amendment, be forced to disclose whether he is in possession of firearms, because that would be tantamount to forcing him to admit a crime.”

    The bill died in the State Senate.

    In Virginia, the gun lobby has repeatedly stymied efforts to make it illegal for people subject to court injunctions to possess firearms. (Currently, they are barred only from buying and transporting firearms.)

    “There’s often recognition that firearms and domestic violence is a lethal combination, but it’s followed quickly with concerns about taking away an individual’s right to possess a firearm,” said Kristine Hall, the policy director for the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance.

    The lack of a state surrender law helps explain what happened when Deborah Wigg, a 39-year-old accountant in Virginia Beach, obtained a protective order in April 2011 against her husband, Robert Wigg, whom she was in the process of divorcing. In her petition, she described a violent encounter in which Mr. Wigg grabbed her by her hair, threw her down, ripped out a door and threw it at her. He was arrested and charged with assault. She also made clear in the petition that her husband owned a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun.

    She eventually won a full protective order, but Mr. Wigg kept his gun, which he used in his business installing and servicing A.T.M.’s.

    Ms. Wigg and her co-workers at an accounting firm openly fretted about the weapon. She agreed that every morning she would call Marty Ridout, a partner at the firm, so he could make sure she was safe.

    On the morning of Nov. 8, 2011, Ms. Wigg left Mr. Ridout a voice mail message saying everything was fine.

    Around 11 p.m. that night, however, Mr. Wigg, 43, showed up at his wife’s home and began ringing the doorbell and pounding on the door. Ms. Wigg called her parents. Her mother, Adele Brown, told her to hang up and call 911.

    But as Ms. Brown and her husband, who lived about a half-mile away, were heading over, Mr. Wigg smashed through the door and into the house. The Browns arrived to find a neighbor bent over their daughter’s bleeding form, screaming, “Debbie, don’t leave me!”

    “When we got to her, those beautiful blue eyes were already set,” Ms. Brown said.

    Ms. Wigg died of a single shot to the head.

    After shooting his wife, Mr. Wigg drove to the Browns’, apparently to kill them as well. He killed himself in their front yard.

    “It astounds me,” Mr. Ridout said. “I cannot believe we have a society where a person has physically abused another person and been charged with assaulting her and that they don’t automatically take away his weapon.”

    A System That’s Working

    One state with strict laws in this arena is California, where anyone served with a temporary protective order has 24 hours to turn over any weapons to local law enforcement or sell them to a licensed gun dealer.

    Enforcement, however, has been inconsistent. So in 2006, the state set up pilot programs to increase enforcement in San Mateo County, just outside San Francisco, and Butte County, a largely rural area north of Sacramento. The programs’ money dried up in 2010 with the state’s fiscal woes, but San Mateo sought other financing because it believed that its program was saving lives.

    “We have not had a firearm-related domestic violence homicide in the last three years,” said Sgt. Linda Gibbons, who oversees the program as the head of the major crimes unit in the county sheriff’s office.

    Last year alone, the program took in 324 firearms through seizure or surrender from 81 people, out of more than 800 protective orders it reviewed.

    Every morning, Detective John Kovach, who handles a range of domestic violence investigations, reviews a stack of protective orders filed the day before — generally 15 to 20 a day — looking for any mention of firearms.

    Usually, a handful of orders a day will contain some reference to guns, which Detective Kovach follows up on. He sometimes contacts the person protected by the order to find out more. He also checks various law enforcement databases, including one available in California that tracks handgun purchases.

    He goes out once or twice a week and serves the restraining orders himself. Usually, he says, he tries to collect firearms immediately, employing a well-honed sales pitch about helping the person comply with the law. If he believes beforehand that the person might not be cooperative, he will sometimes request a search warrant.

    “My experience is the quicker you act, the more successful you’re going to be,” he said.

    Notably, given the gun lobby’s objections to seizing guns after just a temporary order, Detective Kovach said he had handled only one or two restraining orders involving firearms in the last year that were eventually dropped after the court hearing.

    In a typical case, a 19-year-old woman from Redwood City filed for a restraining order against her husband in December, explaining that he had become increasingly abusive and that she had recently moved out. She checked off a box on the form saying he had used firearms to threaten her and, on a confidential “weapons possession data sheet” provided as a part of the San Mateo program, indicated that he owned an assault rifle and a handgun.

    The detective picked up her order the following morning and, with a colleague, arranged to meet that day. She told them that after an argument a year earlier, her husband had threatened to kill himself, sending her in a text message a picture of himself holding an assault rifle to his head. More recently, he had warned that if she started dating, he would shoot the man, her and then himself.

    Detective Kovach quickly secured a search warrant. He and several other detectives staked out the man’s home and served him with the protective order while he was walking his dog. In their search, they turned up seven guns, including two AR-15 assault rifles.

    “Every murder, when you look at it, there are always points where law enforcement could have made a difference,” the detective said. “I don’t ever want to be that guy who goes to sleep knowing he hasn’t done everything to protect the public.”

    Deadly Consequences

    In Washington State, The Times’s analysis highlighted danger at play when there is no broad mandatory firearm surrender law.

    Under current law, judges issuing protective orders are required to order the surrender of firearms only in very specific situations, like a determination by “clear and convincing evidence” that the person has used the weapon in a felony or has committed another offense that by law would disqualify him from having a firearm. Otherwise, judges have the discretion to issue a surrender order under a variety of circumstances, including a finding that there is a threat of “irreparable injury.” (There is also a court form specifically requesting the surrender of firearms, but advocates say it is rarely used because few victims of domestic violence know about it.)

    All five of the Washington cases identified by The Times in which the woman who obtained the protective order was later killed were murder-suicides. In three cases, the woman wrote in her petition that her husband or ex-boyfriend possessed firearms. In none of the cases did the judges issue surrender orders.

    In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order would have prevented the deaths. Even so, those cases can show the existing system’s weakness in the face of obvious peril.

    Melissa Batten, a 36-year-old software developer for Xbox, secured a temporary protective order in July 2008, describing a series of episodes in which her estranged husband harassed her and also broke into her workplace in Redmond. She said he also pointed a loaded gun at her in an argument and then put it to his head, threatening to kill himself.

    It fell to a mutual friend, however, not the courts or law enforcement, to deal with the gun. He persuaded the husband, Robert Batten, to sell his .22-caliber handgun back to the dealer, according to a police report. But Mr. Batten later bought two more guns, a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver and a 9-millimeter Taurus semiautomatic, according to the police. It is not clear exactly when he bought them, but the police found evidence that he went to a gun show a few days after being served with the protective order. (In some states, the existence of the order would have barred him from buying guns.)

    Mr. Batten shot his wife eight times in the parking lot outside her home before shooting himself, killing them both.

    Ms. Batten’s case made headlines. Then there are the more routine episodes that unfold outside the public eye.

    Julie Lohrengel obtained a temporary order for protection against her estranged husband, Shawn Lohrengel, in August 2010, detailing several encounters, including one in which he had shaken her and grabbed her by the throat. She checked off the box in the petition that indicated he possessed firearms.

    The court commissioner did not order Mr. Lohrengel to surrender his guns. Several weeks later, Ms. Lohrengel and a friend, with Ms. Lohrengel’s two children in the back seat, drove up to her home in Centralia but stopped when they saw Mr. Lohrengel’s truck parked outside the garage. As they started backing out of the driveway, between five and eight gunshots rang out, but no one was wounded. When the police arrived, Mr. Lohrengel ran out onto the front porch with a rifle, as if looking for someone, the police report said. He eventually pleaded guilty to aiming and discharging a firearm and reckless endangerment.

    Sometimes, the person who takes out a protective order is not the one ultimately victimized.

    James Anthony Mills, 17, pleaded guilty last year to second-degree murder for firing two shots that killed Adrian Wilson, 16, at a birthday barbecue in Auburn, Wash. Less than a year before, an ex-girlfriend of Mr. Mills’s had obtained an order for protection against him. She explained in her petition that Mr. Mills had threatened her with a gun during an argument. Nothing was done about the weapon.

    Even in cases where there was evidence that someone subject to a civil order for protection possessed a gun in violation of state and federal law, no move was made to remove it.

    Dennis Pirone was arrested in Seattle in July 2009 and charged with harassing his ex-girlfriend Jody Mayes. A criminal no-contact order was issued, requiring him to surrender his firearms. He filled out a form declaring that he had none. He was arrested again a few weeks later for violating the no-contact order. Once again, after being ordered to surrender firearms, he declared that he did not have any.

    That December, Ms. Mayes sought a protective order, writing in her petition that Mr. Pirone had bought a gun even though “he is a convicted felon and is not supposed to have it in his own words.”

    Two months later, Mr. Pirone flew into a rage at another woman, a roommate, after she refused his sexual advances. He came back with a small silver handgun, told the woman, “I will kill you,” and pointed the gun at her before firing a shot into an old sofa, according to a Seattle police report. The police later found two .22-caliber semiautomatic handguns in the house.

    More than a year after her ordeal in Spokane, Stephanie Holten still cannot understand why the judge did nothing about her former husband’s guns.

     I do believe in the Second Amendment,” she said, “but at the same time, public safety has to be paramount.”

    Ms. Holten, 39, who is still seeing a counselor about the episode, said her mind relentlessly replays the scene of her on her knees, looking down the barrel of a loaded gun. In the recording of her 911 call, she can be heard sobbing and begging Mr. Holten to leave. He can be heard responding, between expletives, that she is going to die.

    Mr. Holten — who later pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault and was sentenced to more than six years in prison — ordered her upstairs to her bedroom, forcing her to show him that she still had their wedding photos and other mementos. He then offered her a deal: he would put the gun down if she promised to drop the protection order, give him custody of their son and not call the police. When she tearfully assented, Mr. Holten placed his 9-millimeter carbine — the same weapon Ms. Holten believes she saw at his home a month earlier and cited in her court petition — in a hallway closet. That was when they both heard a male voice say “Police Department.”

    Her legs buckled, and she crumpled to the ground.

    “I wish in my case he had to surrender everything,” she said. “If the cops had been able to take the firearms out of that household when they served him, I think it would have averted the entire thing.”

    Categories: NRA Watch

    America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA)

    NRA Watch - Tue, 03/19/2013 - 07:13

    The year was 1955. Emmett Till was a young African-American boy from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi. One day Emmett was seen “flirting” with a white woman in town, and for that he was mutilated and murdered at the age of fourteen. He was found with part of a cotton gin tied around his neck with a string of barbed wire. His killers, two white men, had shot him in the head before they dumped him in the river.

    Emmett Till’s body was found and returned to Chicago. To the shock of many, his mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral so that the public could see what happens to a little boy’s body when bigots decide he is less than human. She wanted photographers to take pictures of her mutilated son and freely publish them. More than 10,000 mourners came to the funeral home, and the photo of Emmett Till appeared in newspapers and magazines across the nation.

    “I just wanted the world to see,” she said. “I just wanted the world to see.”

    The world did see, and nothing was ever the same again for the white supremacists of the United States of America. Because of Emmett Till, because of that shocking photograph of this little dead boy, just a few months later, “the revolt officially began on December 1, 1955″ (from Eyes on the Prize) when Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. The historic bus boycott began and, with the images of Emmett Till still fresh in the minds of many Americans, there was no turning back.

    In March of 1965, the police of Selma, Alabama, brutally beat, hosed and tear-gassed a group of African Americans for simply trying to cross a bridge during a protest march. The nation was shocked by images of blacks viciously maimed and injured. So, too, was the President. Just one week later, Lyndon Johnson called for a gathering of the U.S. Congress and he went and stood before them in joint session and told them to pass a bill he was introducing that night – the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And, just five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

    In March, 1968, U.S. soldiers massacred 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. A year and a half later, the world finally saw the photographs – of mounds of dead peasants covered in blooda terrified toddler seconds before he was gunned down, and a woman with her brains literally blown out of her head. (These photos would join other Vietnam War photos, including a naked girl burned by napalm running down the road, and a South Vietnamese general walking up to a handcuffed suspect, taking out his handgun, and blowing the guy’s brains out on the NBC Nightly News.)

    With this avalanche of horrid images, the American public turned against the Vietnam War. Our realization of what we were capable of rattled us so deeply it became very hard for future presidents (until George W. Bush) to outright invade a sovereign nation and go to war there for a decade.

    Bush was able to pull it off because his handlers, Misters Cheney and Rumsfeld, knew that the most important thing to do from the get-go was to control the images of the war, to guarantee that nothing like a My Lai-style photograph ever appeared in the U.S. press.

    And that is why you never see a picture any more of the kind of death and destruction that might make you get up off your couch and run out of the house screaming bloody murder at those responsible for these atrocities.

    That is why now, after the children’s massacre in Newtown, the absolute last thing the National Rifle Association wants out there in the public domain is ANY images of what happened that tragic day.

    But I have a prediction. I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child’s body, that’s the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

    Of course, there will be a sanctimonious hue and cry from the pundits who will decry the publication of these gruesome pictures. Those who do publish or post them will be called “shameful” and “disgraceful” and “sick.” How could a media outlet be so insensitive to the families of the dead children! Someone will then start a boycott of the magazine or website that publishes them.

    But this will be a false outrage. Because the real truth is this: We do not want to be confronted with what the actual results of a violent society looks like. Of what a society that starts illegal wars, that executes criminals (or supposed criminals), that strikes or beats one of its women every 15 seconds, and shoots 30 of its own citizens every single day looks like. Oh, no, please – DO NOT MAKE US LOOK AT THAT!

    Because if we were to seriously look at the 20 slaughtered children – I mean really look at them, with their bodies blown apart, many of them so unrecognizable the only way their parents could identify them was by the clothes they were wearing – what would be our excuse not to act? Now. Right now. This very instant! How on earth could anyone not spring into action the very next moment after seeing the bullet-riddled bodies of these little boys and girls?

    We don’t know exactly what those Newtown photographs show. But I want you – yes, you, the person reading this right now – to think about what we do know:

    The six- and seven-year-old children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School were each hit up to eleven times by a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic weapon. The muzzle velocity of a rifle like the AR-15 is about three times that of a handgun. And because the kinetic energy of a bullet equals one-half of the bullet’s mass multiplied by its velocity squared, the potential destructive power of a bullet fired from a rifle is about nine times more than that of a similar bullet fired from a handgun.

    Nine times more. I spoke to Dr. Victor Weedn, chairman of the Department of Forensic Sciences at George Washington University, who told me that chest x-rays of a person shot with a rifle will often look like a “snowstorm” because their bones will have been shattered into fragments. This happens not just because of the bullet’s direct impact, but because each bullet sends a shock wave through the body’s soft organs – one so powerful it can break bones even when the bullet didn’t hit them. A video here shows what the shock wave looks like in the “ballistic gelatin” used by experts to simulate human tissue. (Would Gabby Giffords have survived if shot by a rifle rather than a Glock pistol? Probably not, says Dr. Weedn; the shock wave would have damaged the most critical parts of her brain.)

    As horrifying as this is, there’s more; much more. Dr. Cyril Wecht, past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, told me this:

    The kind of ammunition used by the Newtown killer would have produced very extensive, severe and mutilating injuries of the head and face in these small victims. Depending on the number of shots striking a child’s head, substantial portions of the head would be literally blasted away. The underlying brain tissue would be extensively lacerated with portions of hemorrhagic brain tissue protruding through the fractured calvarium and basilar skull, some of which would remain on portions of the face… actual physical identification of each child would have been extremely difficult, and in many instances impossible, even by the parents of any particular child.

    We also know this, according to Dr. Wecht:

    In one case, the parents have commented publicly upon the damage to their child, reporting that his chin and left hand were missing. Most probably, this child had brought his hand up to his face in shock and for protection and had the hand blasted away along with the lower part of his face.

    Veronique Pozner, the mother of Noah, the six-year-old boy described by Dr. Wecht, insisted that the governor of Connecticut look at Noah in an open casket. “I needed it to be real to him,” she said. The governor wept.

    The pictures showing all this exist right now, somewhere in the police and medical examiner’s files in Connecticut. And as of right now, we’ve somehow all decided together that we don’t need to look, that in some way we’re okay with what’s in those pictures (after all, over 2,600 Americans have been killed by guns since Newtown) – just as long as we don’t have to look at the pictures ourselves.

    But I am telling you now, that moment will come with the Newtown photos – and you will have to look. You will have to look at who and what we are, and what we’ve allowed to happen. At the end of World War II, General Eisenhower ordered that thousands of German civilians be forced to march through the concentration camps so they could witness what was happening just down the road from them during the years that they turned their gaze away, or didn’t ask, or didn’t do anything to stop the murder of millions.

    We’ve done nothing since Columbine – nothing – and as a result there have been over 30 other mass shootings since then. Our inaction means that we are all, on some level, responsible – and therefore, because of our burying our heads in the sand, we must be forced to look at the 20 dead children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

    The people we’ve voted for since Columbine – with the exception of Michael Bloomberg – almost none of them, Democrat or Republican, dared to speak out against the NRA before Newtown – and yet we, the people, continued to vote for them. And for that we are responsible, and that is why we must look at the 20 dead children.

    Most of us continue to say we “support the Second Amendment” as if it were written by God (or we’re just afraid of being seen as anti-American). But this amendment was written by the same white men who thought a Negro was only 3/5 human. We’ve done nothing to revise or repeal this – and that makes us responsible, and that is why we must look at the pictures of the 20 dead children laying with what’s left of their bodies on the classroom floor in Newtown, Connecticut.

    And while you’re looking at the heinous photographs, try saying those words out loud: “I support the Second Amendment!” Something, I’m guessing, won’t feel right.

    Yes, someday a Sandy Hook mother – or a Columbine mother, or an Aurora mother, or a mother from massacres yet to come – will say, like the mother of Emmett Till, “I just want the world to see.” And then nothing about guns in this country will ever be the same again.

    Pack your bags, NRA – you’re about to be shown the door. Because we refuse to let another child die in this manner. Got it? I hope so.

    All you can do now is hope no one releases those photos.

    Categories: NRA Watch
    Syndicate content