Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Democrat Lawmakers Boycott Uvalde Moment Of Silence To Push For Gun Control

Published

on

Democrat Lawmakers Boycott Uvalde Moment Of Silence To Push For Gun Control

#Democrat #Lawmakers #Boycott #Uvalde #Moment #Silence #Push #Gun #Control

Five House Democrats boycotted a bipartisan moment of silence that was held in honor of the 21 victims of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas in order to push a series of radical gun control proposals.

“We just boycotted the moment of silence on the House floor,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) in a tweet that featured an image of herself standing with Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).

Speier continued, “No more moments of silence without REAL action.”

The moment of silence was organized for all House members to participate by Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), whose represents Uvalde.

RELATED: Hollywood Actor Kevin Sorbo: I’m Not Taking Gun Safety Tips From A White House That Armed the Taliban

Advertisement

Using Another Tragedy to Push Gun Control

Speier and other House Democrats are using the tragedy in Uvalde in another attempt to put forth stricter policies on firearms that would adversely impact law-abiding citizens.

Speier had announced several weeks ago her intention to boycott the moment of silence shortly after it was announced, also tweeting immediately her gun control proposals hours after the massacre took place.

RELATED: Democrats Looking to Rush Gun Control Bills

Democrats used this tragedy to usher support for the “Protect Our Kids Act,” which consists of eight separate bills that range in legislation that would impact the buying age of semi-automatic weapons, the creation of a registry of bump stocks, banning standard capacity magazines, and other policies they argue would decrease gun-related violence throughout the country.

Some Democrats who attended the moment of silence, such as Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), still took the opportunity to point the spotlight on the upcoming legislation by posting a tweet saying, “Today the House observed a moment of silence to honor those who were taken from us by senseless gun violence. As we work this week to save lives, the people of Uvalde will be in our hearts.”

Does the “Protect Our Kids Act” Have a Chance of Becoming Law?

The bill managed to pass in the House in a mostly party-line vote of 223-204, but is unlikely to pass in the upper chamber.

However, while this Act might not see victory in the Senate, that doesn’t mean Democrats won’t get their way on some measure of gun control this year.

Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) have begun bipartisan negotiations regarding a potential bill that could sway Senate Republicans who support concepts such as red flag laws, such senators including Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) who have already spoken in favor them in the wake of the Uvalde shooting.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

Advertisement


Politics

Exclusive: Fed More Concerned About Inflation Than Recession – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Compelling Television

#Fed #Concerned #Inflation #Recession

“There are a lot of blogs and news sites claiming to understand politics, but only a few actually do. Political Wire is one of them.”

— Chuck Todd, host of “Meet the Press”

“Concise. Relevant. To the point. Political Wire is the first site I check when I’m looking for the latest political nugget. That pretty much says it all.”

— Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report

“Political Wire is one of only four or five sites that I check every day and sometimes several times a day, for the latest political news and developments.”

— Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report

“The big news, delicious tidbits, pearls of wisdom — nicely packaged, constantly updated… What political junkie could ask for more?”

— Larry Sabato, Center for Politics, University of Virginia

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: This Innocent Woman's House Was Destroyed by a SWAT Team. A Jury Says She's Owed $60,000. – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

This Innocent Woman's House Was Destroyed by a SWAT Team. A Jury Says She's Owed $60,000.

#Innocent #Woman039s #House #Destroyed #SWAT #Team #Jury #She039s #Owed

When Vicki Baker cleared out her home in McKinney, Texas, in 2020, she filled two 40-foot dumpsters with her belongings. It wasn’t the way she’d pictured emptying the house as she prepared to begin retirement in Montana. But there was little else to be done with her tear-gas stained items after a SWAT team careened through her fence, detonated explosives to blow her garage door off its hinges, smashed several windows, and drove a BearCat armored vehicle through her front door to apprehend a fugitive that had barricaded himself inside.

A federal jury last week decided that Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 for the trouble. It’s both a controversial and surprising decision. Normally, people like Baker get nothing.

In July 2020, Wesley Little arrived at Baker’s house with a 15-year-old girl he’d kidnapped. Little had previously worked for Baker as a handyman, though she had fired him about a year and a half earlier after her daughter, Deanna Cook, expressed that something may be awry. Cook answered Little at the door that day; having seen him on recent news reports, she left the premises and called the police.

The girl was released unharmed. But Little refused to exit the home, so a SWAT team arrived and began to tear the house down around him in a process known as “shock and awe.”

They then kindly left Baker with the bill. “I’ve lost everything,” she told me in March 2021. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without fear of how I’m going to make my regular bills.” Those bills include treatment for stage 3 breast cancer.

Yet the only thing perhaps more absurd than a jury having to force the government’s hand in recompensing her is that Baker almost did not have the privilege to bring her case before one. Federal courts in similar cases have ruled that the government can usurp “police powers” to destroy your property and avoid having to pay it back under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which is supposed to provide a remedy for such circumstances.

After the ordeal, Baker sought that remedy through her home insurance, which stipulated that they are not on the hook if it is the government’s fault. And though the government didn’t deny being at fault, per se, they did deny that Baker was a victim, sending her on her way with a ravaged home, thousands of dollars in destroyed personal possessions, and a dog that went deaf and blind from the chaos that July day.

In November of last year, Baker’s luck began to turn. A federal judge denied the city of McKinney’s motion to dismiss her case. In April, that same jurist, Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, described the interpretation of the law barring Baker from suing as “untenable.” And last week, the jury handed down their ruling. The city may appeal, which will delay any payout.

In coming to his decision, Mazzant invoked another unfortunate case: that of the Lech family, who had their $580,000 home ruined by a SWAT team as they pursued an unrelated shoplifter who broke in. Greenwood Village, Colorado, did more for them than McKinney would do for Baker, forking over all of $5,000. A federal court ruled that the family could not sue, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

Advertisement

“Even though a number of federal courts have gone the wrong way on this issue, they’ve done so with very cursory analysis,” says Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm shepherding Baker’s case. He says this new ruling is different and should “be the one that everyone is looking at” as similar situations continue to pop up.

It does not set a precedent, however. “In this case, we put the city claims agent on the stand,” notes Redfern, “and she said, ‘Yep, I denied the claim, and I deny every claim like this, and if this happened tomorrow I would deny it again.’” Unfortunately for people like Vicki Baker, this will continue to be a familiar story.

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: 1/6 Committee Hits Spiraling Trump Again By Subpoenaing Pat Cipollone – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

1/6 Committee Hits Spiraling Trump Again By Subpoenaing Pat Cipollone

#Committee #Hits #Spiraling #Trump #Subpoenaing #Pat #Cipollone

The 1/6 Committee has subpoenaed one of the people who knows the intimate details of Trump’s coup plot, former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.

The AP reported:

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection issued a subpoena Wednesday to former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has been linked to meetings in which lawyers debated strategies to overturn former President Donald Trump’s election loss.

The Committee said that it required Cipollone’s testimony after obtaining other evidence about which he was “uniquely positioned to testify.”

Pat Cipollone Can Testify To The Plot To Overturn The Election

According to Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, Cipollone has intimate and wide-ranging details about the plot to overturn the election. Hutchinson testified that Cipollone warned that if Trump went to the Capitol, they would be charged with every crime imaginable.

Trump was already falling apart after Hutchinson’s testimony, and he could be in for a double whammy if his former White House Counsel testifies. The White House Counsel is not a personal lawyer to the president but represents the institutional interests of the Executive Branch.

If Cipollone testifies, it will be the bombshell that will level the rubble that was already smoldering after Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony.

Advertisement

 

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.