Home Blog Page 2070

Atif Qarni: Gov. McAuliffe Should Veto “Secret Police” Bill

By
lowkell
-
3

by Atif Qarni

The Virginia State Senate recently passed a bill which is being coined as “the secret police” bill. This legislation will likely pass the House of Delegates soon and will be sent to Governor McAuliffe. If signed into law, FOIA requests will not be granted to gain access to records of police officers at state and local levels, including any law enforcement who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of penal, traffic, or highway laws of the Commonwealth.

The problem with this bill is that taxpayers will not be able to hold law enforcement agents accountable for any misconduct or wrongdoing while serving in their official capacities. This legislation takes a huge step backwards in providing transparency into taxpayer funded positions and any potential abuse of power.

The Virginia State Senate passed this bill 25-15, with all Republican Senators voted for it, along with four Democrats. I will not make this a partisan issue, but instead will focus on the potential negative impact this bill can have on our citizenry.

Our police officers put their lives at risk to serve and defend. They should be respected and protected. Having said that, law enforcement divisions do provide officers working narcotics or undercover with many protections. To my knowledge, law enforcement statistics do not show a rising rate of violence against police officers in the Commonwealth. In fact, violent acts against police officers nationwide have declined in the last few years, with 2015 seeing among the lowest number of violent acts against police officers in a quarter century.

So why do we need the “secret police” bill?  This legislation was pushed by police unions, and compelling testimony from police officers was provided. As a special interest group, of course it is their right to advocate for issues that are important to their members. Absent from these proceedings, however, were organizations advocating for civil liberties, such as the NAACP or ACLU.

I realize that elected officials in Virginia have to review hundreds of bills in a short period of time, and that they do so with very limited staff and other resources. I also realize that when counterarguments are not provided, a bill is deemed “noncontroversial,” and therefore it becomes easier for legislators to pass it. Nevertheless, sound judgement has to be displayed in cases like this, because the fine print does actually matter.

This bill, if it is signed into law, will create a system like Chicago. The majority of police officers, like many public servants, are decent, hardworking professionals. However, as in any workplace, there will always be a few who will bend the rules. Those individuals should be held accountable for their actions.  Yet if this bill is enacted, it will protect the identities of these bad actors and create a “cone of silence” that further erodes the trust that exists between law enforcement and the people they are sworn to protect.

If a police officer is officially written up for misconduct, police departments will file this report in the individual’s personnel record.  If this bill becomes law, these reports become sealed and inaccessible to the public, even if a FOIA request is made. If multiple reports of misconduct exist in a police officer’s personnel file, there will be little to no repercussion for Departments who have failed to take appropriate action to discipline the employee, as these files will be essentially sealed from the public.

Although there is no evidence of a rising rate of violent acts against police officers in the Commonwealth, there IS evidence indicating that people of color are being unfairly targeted, mistreated and disproportionately penalized by law enforcement officials. In Virginia, we cannot afford to create a situation where law enforcement and minority communities are fearful or suspicious of one another.

I have served on panels and participated in meetings with police officers from Fairfax County, Prince William County and Manassas City. One important goal has been to proactively build relations with the communities of color that the police serve. For example, the Security Resident Officer that is assigned to the middle school where I work has been a good ambassador and role model for the student population, which is predominantly African American and Latino. We need to continue to take proactive approaches to bring minority communities and law enforcement communities closer together, not further apart.

Friends in the General Assembly tell me that it is inevitable that this bill will pass the House.  The only way that we can stop this bill, then, is by appealing to the Governor to veto it when it reaches his desk. I urge people reading this post to to do that.  Governor McAuliffe’s efforts to work across party lines to get meaningful legislation passed have been admirable. However, this bill could set a dangerous precedent for further obfuscation of law enforcement activities and potentially jeopardize the integrity of our law enforcement system as a whole. It should not be signed into law.

Wednesday News: Cruz and Rubio Can’t Stop Trump, Who Takes on Glenn Beck in NV

By
lowkell
-
3

by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, February 24. Also, how crazy is the far-right-wing, extremist freak show? Check out Donald Trump taking on Glenn Beck in Nevada. Bizarro!

Commonwealth Institute: Virginia is Exceptionally Unequal

By
lowkell
-
2

I got the following this afternoon from The Commonwealth Institute. How to fix this problem? How about we start by reversing almost every right-wing policy, from a tax code that massively favors wealthy individuals and powerful corporations (can we say “taxpayer-funded corporate welfare?”), to underinvestment in education, health care, public transit, and other human and physical capital crucial to fostering economic upward mobility? And to accomplish all that? How about we throw out Republicans (and economic conservadems) and replace them with progressives? Sounds like a plan to me; what the hell are we waiting for?

Too many hard-working Virginians can’t seem to get ahead, despite working full-time. Turns out, there’s a reason for that.

Median wages in Virginia are actually lower now in real terms than they were five years ago, even as wages for those at the top have grown sharply. This means that even as a few Virginians get more and more, everyone else is left farther behind. One in five Virginia workers now makes less than $10.33. That’s less than $21,500 a year for someone working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year.
Virginia is now the most unequal state in the country, and is more unequal than at any time on record. As of 2015, high-wage Virginia workers are being paid 6.2 times what low-wage workers make per hour, and 2.8 times what typical Virginians make.

Everyone wants their children to do better than they did, yet when wages for most people are stagnant or even falling that becomes more and more difficult. Many of us are proud of the hard work that helped us climb the ladder of opportunity and provide a better life for our families, whether it’s our own work, our parents’, or our grandparents’ But it’s harder to climb that ladder when the rungs keep getting further apart or are actually missing altogether.

We need to make sure everyone can make ends meet — we’re all better off when all families are financially stable and secure. And, beyond that, access to the American dream — being able to get ahead through hard work and sacrifice — should be for everyone, not just a few who have gotten more and more of the rewards of economic growth in recent years.

We need to grow the economy, and in ways that benefit all of us, not just some.

–Laura Goren, Research Director

 

“I don’t think the revolution’s going to come”

By
lowkell
-
3

I’m not particularly thrilled about quoting Jim Webb, but sad to say, I think he was on to something during his one (and only) Democratic debate appearance back in October when he said to Bernie Sanders, “I don’t think the revolution’s going to come.”

Why do I believe Webb was on to something? Let’s start with Sanders’ prescription for the revolution he believes is necessary to change American politics.

“I think what we need, when I talk about a political revolution, is bringing millions and millions of people into the political process in a way that does not exist right now.”

Unfortunately for Sanders, and arguably for America, that hasn’t happened, at least not at the polls so far (yes, it’s possible that turnout could crank up in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states, but I’m not holding my breath for that, are you?). Check out turnout in the first three Democratic caucuses and primaries: Iowa (171k in 2016, down sharply from 236k in 2008); New Hampshire (251k in 2016, down from 288k in 2008); Nevada (84k in 2016, down from 118k in 2008). So yeah, Democratic turnout has been down in all three primaries and caucuses held so far, compared to 2008. That’s certainly no sign of a “revolution” in progress. In fact, if there’s a “revolution” happening anywhere, it’s frighteningly on the Republican side, with Donald Trump (as Catherine Rampall points out in today’s Washington Post, turnout is way up on the GOP side compared to 2012).

By the way, yesterday’s Washington Post story about how young voters are supposedly “failing Bernie Sanders, just as they’ve failed so many times before,” may have been needlessly harsh in tone, but the fact is that young voters are NOT turning out in “revolution”-level droves for Sanders this year. And that’s a huge problem both for Sanders’ chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and more broadly for Sanders’ underlying idea – one I strongly agree with – that we need much higher levels of constructive citizen involvement  in our democracy (e.g., “an informed, engaged electorate” would be nice) if we’re ever going to get the kind of systemic change we so badly need.

Bottom line: Sanders is correct in many ways about what we need in this country. He’s also in many ways shifted the political conversation, bringing issues of income inequality, corporate power, the health of our democracy, etc, etc.. to the fore. But so far at least, Sanders has been incorrect that simply by forcefully calling for super-progressive policies and for a “political revolution” in this country, such a “revolution” will actually occur. For those of us who have been struggling for many years (and mostly failing) to get Democrats to show up in huge numbers for local races, state legislative races, Congressional races, etc, etc., let’s just say “we feel your pain, Senator Sanders.”

Endorse A Presidential Candidate on Change Politics

By
lowkell
-
0

by Nick Troiano, ChangePolitics

Less than a week remains until Virginia’s primary election on March 1, and Change Politics is helping people prepare to vote in the presidential race.

Change Politics is a new elections platform launched in January by Change.org that allows any citizen to “endorse” a candidate and share that endorsement with their friends. On the website, voters can browse endorsements by those they trust to help inform their decisions.

Hundreds of ordinary citizens and community leaders alike have published endorsements for the candidates they are supporting, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Now, it’s your turn to weigh in.

Which presidential candidate are you supporting? Why? Sound off on Change Politics today by text or video, and share your endorsement with your friends to impact the election next week.

Change Politics will promote the most popular and compelling candidate endorsements to over 400,000 Change.org users in Virginia before Election Day. Keep up to speed by following Change Politics’ Virginia Presidential Candidate Endorsement Tracker.

Tuesday News: Marco Rubio is a “Fringe Crank” Attacking the Wrong Opponent; Ted Cruz Needs to Fire Himself

By
lowkell
-
3

by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Tuesday, February 23.

GOP Time Machine Takes Presidential Candidates Back to 1950s

By
lowkell
-
0

From American Bridge:

Less than 24 hours after signing a bill to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio, John Kasich took to the campaign trail this morning and thanked the “women who left their kitchens” to go campaign for him when he ran for state Senate in Ohio. To clarify – Kasich first ran for the Ohio Senate in the late 1970s, not the early 1950s.

Kasich’s comments aren’t surprising given his dismal record on women’s issues. But as Kasich catches heat for his remarks this morning, it’s important to remember that every single GOP presidential candidate has supported policies that would turn back the clock on women’s health. Kasich’s remarks this morning provide a stark reminder that the GOP has become the Party of Trump, and even the so-called “moderate” candidate holds the most extreme views on women’s health:

  • Donald Trump said he would defund Planned Parenthood, referring to the women’s health organization as “an abortion factory.”
  • After the shooting at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs, Trump talked about the falsified Center for Medical Progress videos. He said, “There is a tremendous group of people that think it’s terrible all of the videos that they’ve seen with some of these people from Planned Parenthood talking about it like you’re selling parts to a car.”
  • Marco Rubio opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. When asked about exceptions, Rubio said, “I believe and I’ve always advocated that life begins at conception.”
  • In 2012, Rubio introduced a bill that would let employers refuse to cover contraceptives in their health insurance plans. In response to the bill, a Tampa Bay Times editorial blasted the senator saying the bill showed Rubio believed “women… should be subject to a religious agenda as a condition of their employment.”

If I Were Bernie, Here’s the Speech I’d Give Now

By
Andy Schmookler
-
2

Democratic voters have a choice between two candidates. Which candidate is the better choice depends on what you think is possible for us to achieve.

If you think we are stuck with the power system we have — in which moneyed interests take over the American democracy and get to call more and more of the shots, and where politicians can be rewarded rather than punished for betraying the American people — Secretary Clinton is an admirable choice. She is intelligent, hard-working, and has shown over many years a concern for the well-being of American families.

She has pledged that, if she is elected president, she will work with the system as it is to work toward many of the same goals that have also inspired me to run.

Like me, she wants for Americans to have health care coverage, just as the citizens of every other advanced society do.

But she thinks that the health insurance companies and Big Pharma will inevitably have veto power over what kind of health insurance system we can have in the United States, and that there’s nothing we can do about that.

I believe that together, we the people can regain the power to make those choices that are best for America.

Like me, Secretary Clinton wants for our country to respond to the challenge of climate change.

But she thinks our responses have to take into account the enormous political power the fossil fuel companies now have. Which is probably why it took her so long to oppose the terribly ill-advised Keystone pipeline project.

I believe that together, we the people can overcome that corporate choke-hold on our progress.

Like me, Hillary is concerned with how wealth and income in America are being transferred from the distressed middle class to the very richest and to the corporate system.

But she believes that we have to accept as given that corporate power gets to choose our economic arrangements even if they hurt America’s working families. And that probably explains why she came only lately to oppose the TPP trade agreement which, the American people should understand, represents a power grab by corporate America.

I believe that, together, we can create a political revolution that ends this rigged economy, making our economic system serve all Americans, not just the billionaire class and the corporate system.

Like me, she recognizes that – to accomplish anything – we have to deal with the determination of the Republicans now controlling Congress to block anything that a Democratic president tries to accomplish.

But she apparently accepts as a given that the Republicans can practice this kind of across-the-board obstructionism without paying the political price such behavior deserves. And that’s why, I believe, she speaks about “reaching across the aisle” – even though President Obama has reached across that aisle time and again, only to get his hand bitten by Republicans who had no interest whatever in working with him to find good solutions for America.

I believe that we do not have to accept this unacceptable Republican obstructionism and that, by calling out this destructive Republican conduct, we can together compel this Republican Party to choose between becoming again the constructive conservative party America needs, or having its power taken away by the American people.

Like me, Secretary Clinton wants to rescue our democracy from the corrupting influence of Big Money and, in particular, to overturn that terrible Supreme Court decision, Citizens United.

But Citizens United can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment. And there’s no way that any such amendment can be passed in the absence of a political revolution of the kind that Ms. Clinton says is impossible.

I believe that, together, we can create such a political revolution, and that now is the time to do it.

I have been involved in politics my whole adult life. But never did I think I would make a serious run for the presidency—not until the past couple of years. Not until I saw how we are fast losing our democracy, how we are already far along the road of being governed by the Money Power, and how urgent it is that we take back the people’s government. We have no time to lose!

I decided to run because I understood that establishment politics – which accepts the status quo of the distribution of power in America today — could never reverse course and hand back power to the American people.

I understood that nothing short of a political revolution – the American people coming together, organizing, and acting with the tools we still have in our democratic system – could turn around this movement from democracy toward oligarchy.

I understood that what our founders had in mind when they said “all men are created equal” and spoke of “the consent of the governed” – that the great American principles of “one person, one vote” and government not just of the people but by and for the people as well – could be restored in letter and in spirit only if the American people rise up and demand it.

I am running to provide the American people the vehicle to do just that.

But if you believe that such a thing is impossible, then it makes sense for you to vote for Secretary Clinton.

She is indeed, as she says, tested and prepared. Tested by being the target for decades of vicious attacks from her right-wing enemies. She’s shown herself to be tough and resilient. Prepared by spending those same decades in political life, occupying various important roles—including First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State.

She would probably do as good a job of working for the American people within the status quo in the political arena as anyone could.

But if you do decide that the political revolution I’m talking about is impossible, I deeply believe that you should also recognize that you are probably helping to consign us to a future in which

  • power will not be restored to the American people where it belongs;
  • we will not be able to move America vigorously and creatively into a new energy future to meet the challenge of climate change;
  • we will not be able to achieve what other advanced societies have achieved—a health care system that delivers world-class health care at half what we’re paying now for one that doesn’t even rank in the top 20;
  • we will not be able to restore the balance we once had between the power of workers and the power of the giant corporations that employ them;
  • we will not be able to compel today’s Republican Party to become the constructive conservative party America needs for it to be;
  • we will not be able to unstack the deck that consigns average Americans to stagnant or falling wages, even as the economy grows;
  • we will not be able to restore the American dream, in which each generation can have it better than its parents.

That is why the political revolution I speak of is so necessary. And I am running for president because I do believe it is also still possible.

That is why I am asking for your vote, to make me your nominee for president, so that – together – we can achieve it.

E.W. Jackson Claims “No Black Vote Firewall For Hillary In The South” Despite Overwhelming Evidence to the Contrary

By
lowkell
-
0

As usual, 2013 Virginia GOP Lt. Governor nominee and 2016 Ted Cruz endorser E.W. Jackson is not just wrong, but crazy wrong. In this case, he claims there’s “no black firewall for Hillary in the South,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For instance, a recent PPP poll has a lead of “by anywhere from 40-62 points among black voters in the nine of these states that have more black voters than the national average.” PPP adds that Clinton’s “support ranges from 63-74% with black voters in those states, while Sanders gets 12-23%.” So Jackson’s just flat-out, insanely wrong on this. He’s also wacked out about his usual obsessions: Margaret Sanger as a supposed “racist eugenicist” (utterly false); ranting about gay marriage; blaming Democrats (!!!) and not trickle-down, supply-side, Koch brothers economics for poverty among African Americans; the big lie that Democrats (who, I’d point out, are in agreement with Pope Francis on a huge number of issues) are against what the Bible teaches, even though it’s Republicans who are the party which wants to build walls to keep the “stranger” out, who favor the rich and powerful over the poor and humble, etc, etc.

With that, here’s Jackson’s latest unhinged tirade, which I’m sure will have the same effect his many previous unhinged tirades have had. Zilch.

By Bishop E.W. Jackson

Every pundit in the mainstream media has opined about Hillary’s “firewall” in the south. These comments intensified after the shellacking she received in the New Hampshire primaries at the hands of a confessed socialist. The firewall to which they refer to is the black vote. As usual, white liberals assume that when they say jump, black voters will submissively ask, “How high?”

However, the proverbial firewall for Hillary Clinton may be about to get some very cold water thrown on it. Black voters might not be in a mood to jump, sing or dance to Hillary’s tune. They may not be asking, “How high?” Rather, they may be interrogating Hillary in the same fashion that the FBI agents are asking about her emails. Black Christians in particular will want to know, “what have you done for us? Why have you embraced gay marriage when you know we believe in the biblical definition of marriage? Why are you such an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood and admirer of Margaret Sanger when you know that she was a racist eugenicist who wanted to stop the growth of the black population?”

They might also ask, “If you and your party have done so much for us, why is poverty increasing in the black community. Why is there no economic development? Why are there no jobs? Why is the unemployment rate among black citizens twice that of the national average? Why is there a 50% unemployment rate among black youth?”

If these questions get asked, it will be another disappointing election day for Hillary in the southern primaries because there are no valid answers. Of course she will demagogue the issue of race, believing that she can manipulate black voters. That may not be enough this time.

The election of the first black President has taught a lesson to black voters which more and more are taking to heart. Democrat policies do not work. They are based on the false premise that every bad thing that happens to any black person in America is the result of racism, and government must step in with more funding and more control. That approach is a gargantuan failure. It has not solved the economic and educational disparity. It has not kept increasing numbers of young people off drugs, out of gangs, out of prison or out of the morgue. It has not reduced the scourge of out of wedlock pregnancy, or the disproportionate number of abortions in the black community.

In fact, government programs have left people more entrenched in poverty and despair. For example, the welfare policy which rewards women for the absence of a man in the home is still operating and has all but destroyed the black two parent family.

Black Christians, the largest voting bloc in the black community, should be particularly incensed. Democrats voted God off their platform. Their minions sue every time they see a Christian praying in any public setting. When they are in control, they sanitize their proceedings from all mention of the name of Jesus because they find it “offensive”. They persecute Christians who dare hold to the biblical definition of marriage, and marginalize them as bigots and haters. As Kelvin Cochran, a black man and former Atlanta Fire Chief learned, they will even take away your job for what you preach in church if it does not comport with their amoral worldview. The Democrat Party is not looking for black men and women, but for good boys and girls who never contradict their liberal masters, not even in church. Just ask the preachers who do their bidding.

The ugly fact is that a Christian who votes for Hillary Clinton is committing a grave sin. If you are contemplating doing that, you should pray long and hard about the state of your own heart and the spiritual blindness which holds you captive. I am black, but I am a Christian first. Over thirty years ago God loosed me from bondage to a party that defends the killing of unborn children and opposes Biblical principle at every turn.

I’ve already made the case that Democrats do nothing for the black community. However, even if they were providing significant benefits, is it worth losing one’s soul? To paraphrase Jesus, do not worry about who is going to feed you or who is going to clothe you, for the Godless worry about all these things. Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added to you.

The black Christians of South Carolina and the other southern states must not vote for a candidate or party which opposes everything the Bible teaches. They must no longer jump at the command of Democrat politicians. It is time to stand together with Jesus Christ.

Terry McAuliffe’s Gun Deal Backfires with Victims’ Families

By
lowkell
-
5

by Susan Ahern  

Growing up poor in a small Northeast city Newsweek once dubbed Murder Town USA, I couldn’t dodge gun violence. I cringed at a bullet lodged in a store owner’s chest. I crawled under windows during a riot outside our house, fearing a bullet might crash through glass. And later, I was terrified after our school’s star athlete got shot dead in front of the cafeteria. But going to college on loans, eventually settling in a prosperous suburb 300 miles south, I marveled at my escape! That is, until our son was at Virginia Tech during the massacre.

Then I faced facts: You can’t move away from gun violence in America.

Fortunately, my son was not shot. But I have friends whose kids barely survived the massacre. Their stories horrify: one friend’s son lost consciousness, dropping his cell phone after being shot, and another friend’s daughter retrieved it, finishing the call to 911– the classmates’ blood mingling together. These stories infuriate, especially since Virginia legislators, after the deadliest American shooting by a single gunman, have done little to prevent another massacre.

I joined a determined band of activists working to pass gun-safety laws. We warriors were the ugly stepsisters at the ball, especially through long years of GOP dominance in Virginia. (The party interpreted Second Amendment rights to favor individuals over public safety.)

All that changed with Governor McAuliffe’s election in 2013. He championed his “F” NRA rating, treating us like Cinderella at the ball. Peter Read, an ex-Air Force officer, whose daughter Mary was shot to death at Virginia Tech, says he stood with McAuliffe at an MLK Day rally. “[McAuliffe] said all the right things about [gun violence prevention]; he fired us up, warmed our hearts,” Read said. “But later we came to find out that by then, his gun deal was mostly done. We felt misled.”

The deal Read is referring to is a bargain on concealed-carry handgun reciprocity McAuliffe’s negotiators quietly struck with a bunch of good ol’ boy NRA members—with no input from survivor families. Not even a high-profile female gun-safety activist the governor appointed to the Virginia Crime Commission. Most concerning: the governor’s deal paves the way for the NRA’s ultimate goal of concealed carry of handguns nationally without permits or standards, which puts the public at risk.

McAuliffe’s deal reversed a dramatic order by Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring. In December 2015, AG Herring, with the governor’s blessing, enforced concealed-carry handgun laws already on the books, while revoking reciprocity with states that didn’t meet Virginia’s safety standards. That meant not letting outside folks carry loaded guns in Virginia if they’d had a disqualifying mental-health history, been convicted of weapons charges, domestic assault, sexual offenses, or committed crimes as juveniles that would be adult felonies.

After preaching how much safer Virginia would be, the governor’s staff secretly met with the NRA and astonishingly bargained away Herring’s brave action on guns. McAuliffe got little back in the deal.

Andy Goddard, activist and father of a son shot at VA Tech, says, “The governor’s negotiators gave away the farm for a basket of eggs.” Goddard says the part of the deal that was supposed to make the gun-safety crowd happy by requiring convicted domestic abusers to forfeit guns is a positive. But the bill provides no funding or police action to take guns from abusers, thus it’s as weak as the federal bill it aims to tighten. And the narrow background-check bill in the governor’s deal is voluntary, so again has no teeth.

Speculation is rampant as to why Gov. McAuliffe cozied up to the NRA. Was he aiming to tamp down GOP fury at AG Herring’s reciprocity order to pave the way for Hillary Clinton in Virginia? Was it because McAuliffe faced lame-duck status with an intractable GOP-dominated legislature?

Andy Parker, father of the young reporter slain on live TV in Virginia last August, says: “[I’m] still having a hard time wrapping my arms around why [the Governor] would cut such a horrible deal. I have to wonder what his longtime colleague Hillary Clinton must think since she’s been so vocal in her support of this movement…”

The Governor’s deal is zipping through the legislature and will soon land on McAuliffe’s desk. Gun victims’ families are imploring the public to urge McAuliffe to veto the handgun reciprocity part of his deal that allows lawbreakers from other states to carry loaded guns in Virginia.

Veto it because McAuliffe’s lead negotiators in his gun deal squandered a Daddy Ace: the GOP was desperate to strike a bargain! The GOP had been getting hammered from outraged handgun carriers who believed AG Herring’s severing of Virginia’s reciprocity with many states would not allow them to carry handguns themselves in those states

“I wish,” says Read, “Governor McAuliffe’s pride wouldn’t keep him from admitting that his ‘historic’ gun deal, first in 23-years—is not the great deal he thought it was. And as the most powerful man in Virginia, he could swap this deal for a better deal all around. If he wanted.”

1...2,0692,0702,071...3,457Page 2,070 of 3,457












EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©