Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Steve Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Israel. Show all posts

Saturday, February 24, 2018

It's Time For A Sober, Deliberate Review Of The Parkland School Shooting

Every Single Government Authority Failed In Parkland. And They Expect Americans To Forfeit Our Self-Defense Rights To Them?

Michael Laughlin/Sun Sentinel/TNS via Getty Images
On Thursday night, the American public learned two bombshell pieces of information regarding the Parkland, Florida mass shooting. First, we learned that the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was told in November that the Parkland shooter “could be a school shooter in the making” but deputies didn’t bother to write up a report; that report “came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons.” Then, in even more shocking news, we learned that an armed school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School sat outside and waited for four minutes during the six minute attack that ended in the deaths of 17 human beings.
So, here’s what we know.
We know the FBI was warned specifically about the Parkland shooter not once, but twice — and did nothing.
We know the Broward County Sheriff’s deputies were called to the home of the Parkland shooter at least 39 times since 2010.
We know that the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was warned multiple times about the Parkland shooter.
We know that an armed officer was present during the shooting and did nothing — and that JROTC students showed far more courage.
And yet we are told that the solution to mass shootings is for law-abiding citizens to give more authority to the authorities that failed, and to turn over our only way of protecting ourselves?
Why in the world would a single law-abiding gun owner hand over his or her weapon to the same authorities that did nothing to protect the children of Parkland? Why would a single law-abiding gun owner turn over his or her capacity for self-defense to people who were incapable of defending children at every step of the way?
And why in the world should we blame the NRA, which literally had nothing to do with Parkland, for the failures of every institutional barrier to a massacre? Why should we blame law-abiding gun owners who didn’t shoot up kids for the failures of those who are paid to do stop evil monsters like the Parkland shooter? Why should we take Sheriff Steve Israel seriously when he blames lack of gun control, Dana Loesch, and the NRA, rather than his own radical incompetence and the radical incompetence of those under his authority?
Children are dead not because millions of good citizens own AR-15s, but because dozens of pathetic incompetents and cowards in a position to do something instead did nothing. All the misdirection in the world isn’t going to change that inconvenient fact.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Finally Some Democrats Are Finding Their Voice Against Obama. What Happens When He Is The Candidate Next Year?

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Emerges as Key Obama Critic on ISIS Fight, Security

Image: Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Emerges as Key Obama Critic on ISIS Fight, Security(AP)
Sunday, 29 Nov 2015 09:43 AM
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is a rising star in the Democratic Party, but she has increasingly been at odds with President Barack Obama on Syria and national security.

The New York Times, in a feature published Saturday, notes that since the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, Gabbard has become more of a critic of Obama's policies.
The 34-year-old combat veteran has ramped up her argument that Syrian President Bashar Assad should be left in power to help tamp down the Islamic State (ISIS). She has introduced legislation to defund efforts by the United States to overthrow Assad.

She also voted with Republicans to toughen screening of Syrian refugees – despite a veto threat from Obama.

"My responsibility is to the people of Hawaii and the American people to stand up and fight for what is right and what is in the best interest of our country," she told the Times. "That has nothing to do with party politics."
Latest News Update

Gabbard, a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee also has publicly denounced chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's decision to limit the number of Democratic debates. She was disinvited from the first Democratic debate, http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/tulsi-gabbarad-disinvited-presidential-debate-dnc/2015/10/12/id/695785/ though the party denied if was because of her criticism.

She gets praise from both sides of the aisle, with Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York saying,  "You couldn’t get a better role model. She reflected the diversity of the caucus and at the same time had amazing credibility on the issue of national security."
Rep. Kevin McArthy of California, who is his party's majority leader, said, "I think she has an opportunity to be a great leader."
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Obama's Handling Of Refugee Bill Was Way Below Competent But That Is The Way He Handles Everything!

Democratic Lawmaker Reserves Four Blunt Words to Describe White House’s Involvement on Refugee Bill

Democratic member of Congress told The Huffington Post that the White House did not present a clear case to party members while urging them to vote against the House bill tightening controls on Syrian refugees, with one lawmaker adding that the Obama administration “royally f***ed this up.”
Image source: Shutterstock
Image source: Shutterstock
The remarks were published in a Friday story hours after press secretary Josh Earnest rebuffed suggestions that the White House’s presentation to House Democrats actually hurt its case.
“If the White House hadn’t royally f***ed this up they’d have lost maybe 20 Democrats.”
Share:
“I’m not sure that the analysis holds that the efforts by the White House were counterproductive. They just weren’t as productive as we would have liked,” Earnest told reporters while aboard Air Force One.
But, reporting by The Huffington Post seemed to prove otherwise.
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said he had “seen better presentations in my time” and contended that the White House “may have strong arguments on their side, but they’re not expressing those strong arguments sufficiently.”
Another lawmaker, who requested anonymity, was much more blunt while speaking to The Huffington Post.
“If the White House hadn’t royally f***ed this up they’d have lost maybe 20 Democrats,” he said, though he later voted against the House bill.
A total of 47 Democrats ultimately joined Republicans to push the legislation out of the lower chamber 289-137.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Impeachment Talk Promoted By Democrats As Cynical Fundraising Effort.

Boehner Rules Out Impeachment As Democrats Cash In On Threat

July 29, 2014 by  
 13 6
 
 3 41

WASHINGTON (MCT) — After Democrats said Tuesday they had raised $7.6 million by warning supporters that a planned GOP lawsuit against President Barack Obama could lead to impeachment, House Speaker John A. Boehner accused the White House of engaging in a fundraising “scam” because there are “no plans” for such a step.
In his most definitive comments on the subject to date, Boehner said that Democrats are using the impeachment issue to raise money and rally their base.
“This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the President’s own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” Boehner told reporters Tuesday. “We have no plans to impeach the President. We have no future plans.”
Boehner’s comments come before an expected vote Wednesday by the full House to initiate a lawsuit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive powers. The suit is seen as a way to placate conservative elements of the GOP base who think impeachment should be pursued.
Representative Steve Israel of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said that incoming House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) “breathed new life” into impeachment speculation by refusing to rule it out in a network-TV interview Sunday.
“I do not write Steve Scalise’s talking points,” Israel told reporters at a breakfast hosted by theChristian Science Monitor shortly before Boehner’s news conference. “They’re pushing this because they believe it in their souls, or they believe it in their political calculations.”
Israel detailed just how potent the threat of impeachment has been for Democrats — generating a total of $7.6 million in online donations since Boehner announced the lawsuit in June, including $3 million since an initial committee hearing to discuss it and $1 million on Monday alone.
Despite assertions by Republicans that impeachment is not likely, Israel cited the 2013 government shutdown as proof that it was a real threat.
“We may not believe that impeachment is viable, but around this table very few would have believed that a government shutdown of 16 days was viable,” he said. “They can’t help themselves.”
Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, chairman of the House Republicans’ campaign committee, shared some of the Democratic fundraising numbers with his colleagues at a closed-door meeting Tuesday, suggesting that Republicans avoid the topic.
The timing of the House vote Wednesday may only further benefit Democrats’ campaign coffers, coming just more than 24 hours before the end-of-month fundraising deadline.
–Michael A. Memoli
Tribune Washington Bureau

Friday, May 9, 2014

If Democrats Were Really Concerned About Benghazi Deaths, THEY Would Be Demanding An Investigation! Such Political Theater!


In this May 8, 2014, photo Speaker of the House John Boehner speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Divided House Democrats are weighing whether to participate in a new investigation of the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, or boycott the election-year inquiry of a tragedy they accuse Republicans of politicizing. Party leaders will meet with rank-and-file members Friday to decide the next step after Republicans the day before rammed through a resolution creating a special select committee to examine the Sept. 11, 2012, assault. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

House Democrats weigh role in new Benghazi probe

Friday, May 9th 2014, 10:53 am


WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats said Friday that before deciding whether to participate in a new investigation on the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost at Benghazi, Libya, they want assurances from Speaker John Boehner that the Republican-run probe will be bipartisan and not a political spectacle.
Party leaders huddled with rank and file in a closed-door session to decide whether to take part in the eighth investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012 assault, or whether they should boycott the proceedings. Democrats are split over their involvement in the work of the select committee, which will have a 7-5 Republican edge in membership.
"If there is going to be a true bipartisan inquiry, we'll participate," Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., told reporters following the meeting. "If it's engineered to be a Republican campaign strategy, it's much harder for us to participate."
Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed when militants stormed the diplomatic outpost. Republicans, who insist the Obama administration hasn't come clean on what happened, voted Thursday to create the special committee.
House Democrats have issued several demands if they are to participate in the select committee. Rebuffed on their request for an equal split in membership, Democrats are seeking guarantees they'll have equal access to documents, say on subpoenas and the right to question witnesses. Staff level negotiations have continued.
Israel said that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had made several calls to Boehner on Thursday that went unanswered.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., said the sentiment in the caucus was shifting away from a boycott in favor of participating, but Democrats wanted to know the "rules of engagement" first. They are concerned that their participation would grant legitimacy to what they believe will be a partisan forum. But they also worry that if they avoid it, they won't have the chance to counter GOP claims and defend potential witnesses.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., floated the idea of token participation with just one Democrat, but Connolly said he didn't support that step.
A member of the Democratic leadership, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, expressed his concerns about participating, saying, "if you're going to have a hanging don't ask me to bring the noose."
The panel's investigation means high-profile hearings in the months leading up to the elections, with Republicans grilling current and former Obama administration officials. Certain to be called to testify is former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrats' potential 2016 presidential candidate.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the former prosecutor tapped by Boehner to head the committee, said Friday he was unsure how quickly the committee could be established, but he has already begun planning.
"I've already started assembling and have been assembling a list of questions and kind of my own to-do list," Gowdy said in an interview.
The number of items on the list: "I'd probably say north of 100," Gowdy said.
Boehner maintains that the process will not be partisan, but Democrats have their doubts.
"This is 100 percent pure politics," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Friday. She charged that Republicans are exploiting the families of the four victims of the Benghazi attack by keeping the issue alive.
Wasserman Schultz accused Republicans of doing all in their power "to keep this in the news," saying the GOP is returning its focus to Benghazi now because its staunch opposition to the Affordable Care Act "has lost its luster."
Boehner's legislation creates the special committee through the end of the year. It will have to be reapproved when a new Congress begins in January or go out of existence. The select committee has no explicit financial constraints. The speaker was expected to announce the Republican members on Friday.
In the 20 months since the attack, multiple independent, bipartisan and GOP-led probes already have faulted the State Department for inadequate security at the outpost, leading to four demotions. No attacker has yet been brought to justice.
Republicans say they're unsatisfied with explanations so far, and they have leveled a range of accusations against President Barack Obama, Clinton and other senior administration officials. Chief among them is that the administration misled the American people about the nature of the attack during a presidential election campaign and stonewalled congressional investigators.
Benghazi has produced 13 public hearings, the release of 25,000 pages of documents and 50 separate briefings. The select committee won't be the only inquiry, as other GOP-led congressional panels continue their investigations, including a House Oversight probe which just last week took the extraordinary step of subpoenaing a Cabinet member, Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry hasn't said when he might testify.
Democrats deride the effort as a conservative campaign designed to energize Republican voters in typically low-turnout midterm elections.
Earlier this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent an email vowing that "no one will get away" from the committee's investigation and asking people for donations.
Wasserman Schultz's remarks were made in an interview Friday on CNN.
___
Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper, Erica Werner, Andrew Taylor and Alan Fram contributed to this report.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Insipid, Hate Mongering, Ignorant And Stupid Are The Adjectives Of Steve Israel's Description Of Republicans. By His Statement He Shows How Out Of Touch With Reality He Is.

Yes, Some Republicans Are Racist

The Daily Beast
Yes, Some Republicans Are Racist
.
View photo
Yes, Some Republicans Are Racist
Some time back, whenever a big racial controversy erupted, I trained myself into the habit of reading about it at FoxNews.com, just for the unbelievable comment threads. Let’s put it this way: If my friends and I went out to a bar and started playing a “let’s write the racist FoxNews.com comment thread” drinking game, our efforts couldn’t begin to approach what I read there.
I wasn’t alone. Liberal websites started feasting on these threads. And so, a couple of years ago, Ailes & Co. got wise. Stories about race were, at least in my disheartened experience, closed to comments.
Fox acted, I recall, back in February 2012, when the thread on Whitney Houston’s death made even many conservatives a little jumpy. Here’s a taste: “Whitney is just an inferior lo w life ni gg er that needed to go, no tragedy, no loss…” “Any death is a tragedy you heartless bastard…” “not nignogs their death is a plus…”
Well, at least there was that person in the middle there! But these threads were poisonous, and they didn’t appear just on Fox. They’ve been all over conservative websites and have bled into some mainstream ones, too. Lord, the things I read in comment threads on North Carolina newspapers’ sites in their stories about the “Moral Monday” protests. Believe it or not, conservative readers, I don’t go flinging the r-word around loosely. But these comments, hundreds, thousands of them, were just thuggishly racist. Nothing else to call them.
Beyond these, we have numerous instances of low-level (and sometimes not so low-level) Republican Party officials—Republican Party officials—making racist jokes about Obama. Here’s a little chrestomathy of some of them. If you follow the news closely, you know that hardly a…not quite a week, but let’s say hardly a fortnight goes by that some local GOPer doesn’t show up in the news explaining that he “didn’t mean any harm” in sending that email to friends showing watermelons piled up on the White House, and he’s sincerely sorry “if it offended anyone.” Often, of course, it’s something more malevolent than that.
And now it’s supposed to be controversial when Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) says, as he did Sunday on CNN, that “to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism”? Please. You have to be living a life of willed ignorance and denial to take issue with what Israel said. (The link above, by the way, is to the FoxNews.com story; if you scroll down you will indeed see the inevitable and darkly amusing sentence “Comments are currently closed for this article.”)
Now I don’t know if the people making these comments and the larger group they represent constitute 5 percent of this base or 15 or 50. It depends in part on how you define “base.” But look at the matter this way. Say you were a Republican political consultant. Would you ever in a jillion years suggest that your candidate take on racism within the GOP as a speech topic? You most certainly would not. Your candidate would be dead immediately. I mean metaphorically, but depending on the part of the country in which the speech was given, maybe literally, too. In other words, whether they’re 5 or 15 or 50, commenters like these are enough to prevent Republican politicians from ever addressing racism with any degree of candor. The cowardice on the GOP side on this issue is universal and always has been.
We should not, then, even be debating whether what Israel said is true. Sadly, we shouldn’t even be debating why Republican politicians won’t discuss it. My little hypothetical above showed why. None of them has the stones to. Some, Rand Paul and others, talk a little in general terms about how the party needs to “change” and “modernize.” But to spell out what that change and modernization would involve, in racial terms? No one will confront that.
And so the only question we’re left debating is when all this might change. For starters, it will change some when Barack Obama leaves office. All the Obama-related racial craziness will, obviously, end. But we shouldn’t count on that for much. True, the next president will apparently be a Caucasian one, but racial controversies will still occur, black celebrities will continue to die, juries will keep letting George Zimmermans off. We are going to be divided by the same things we always have.
Still and all, some progress has been made in the Obama era. Outside that ugly whatever-percent-it-is, most Americans, even if they’re mixed on his job performance, feel that some historical settling of debts has occurred now that we crossed the barrier of electing a black president. Two-thirds of Americans admire the first lady. Millions of young children are growing up thinking that Barack Obama is what a president is supposed to look like. All this means that one of these days, and maybe soon-ish, especially if they lose in 2016 and once again snare their usual single-digit share of the black vote, the numbers will favor some Republican giving that speech. When that day comes, our political and media culture might suddenly realize that one of our two major parties turning a blind eye to and sometimes coddling racism in its ranks was a pretty lousy idea. Until then, remarks like Israel’s will be “controversial.”