Posted in Boards, Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Congress, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Ethics, Finances, Fraud, Governor's Office, Politicians on March 7, 2018| 11 Comments »
Louisiana residents victimized by floods and hurricanes don’t need a reminder of the frustrating-ineptness of the Feeble Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or of the soul-crushing corruption of the Department of Housing and Urban Discrimination (HUD).
FEMA trailers, more appropriately designed as egg incubators than dwellings for human beings, stand as mute testimony to mismanagement on a grand scale. At a COST of $150,000 to $170,000 per trailer, including purchase and set-up following the 2016 flood, only to SELL the units for as little as $5,000 each a year later, it’s difficult to imagine even the Pentagon being able to match FEMA in a waste-for-waste competition.
With 144,000 trailers PLACED following hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, and another 4,500 (upgrades vastly superior to the earlier models but still little better than a tent) following the 2016 floods, one can readily see how FEMA now claims to be broke.
Another reason? Try this: Following Hurricane Katrina, The Shaw Group was contracted to place tarpaulins over damaged roofs at a rate of $175 per square (one hundred square feet per square) after Katrina. That’s $175 for draping a ten-foot-by-ten-foot square blue tarpaulin over a damaged roof. Shaw in turn sub-contracted the work to a company called A-1 Construction at a cost of $75 a square. A-1 in turn subbed the work to Westcon Construction at $30 a square. Westcon eventually lined up the actual workers who placed the tarps at a cost of $2 a square.
In normal circumstances, MIKE LOWERY, an estimator for an Austin, Texas, company, said, his company would charge $300 to tarp a 2000-square-foot roof in Austin. For that same size job, the government is paying $2,980 to $3,500, or about 10 times as much, plus additional administrative fees that couldn’t be readily calculated.
FEMA ISSUED 81,241 blue roof tarps across Louisiana after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, said spokesman Aaron Walker ($14.2 million total cost: $8.1 million for Shaw as opposed to $162,000 for those who did the actual work).
But if you think that’s bad, consider this: “Overall, Restore Louisiana (the program set up to assist flood victims) has awarded $207 million of the $1.3 billion allotment from the federal government to homeowners,” according to a story in the Baton Rouge ADVOCATE. Of that amount, only $60.5 million has actually been paid to those driven out of their homes by the floods. The remaining $147 million is being paid in increments to contractors as work progresses.
At the same time, however, the state has shelled out $75 million to IEM, the contracted administrator for environmental reviews and program management. That means administrative costs are 23.4 percent higher than the amount actually spent helping flood victims. Said another way, the amount spent on actual work is only 80 percent of administrative costs so far.
IEM’s total contract to administer the $1.3 billion Restore Louisiana program is for an eye-popping $308 million. That computes to administrative costs that are 19.25 percent of the total contract but which appear to be running closer to 26.6 percent at the present time.
Contrast that, if you will, with contracts the Ruston firm of Hunt, Guillot has received to date to administer Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the recovery of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike and to administer CDBG funds for the Restore Louisiana program set up immediately following the 2016 floods.
Hunt, Guillot received a contract for $18.2 million to administer the disbursement of $7.5 billion in grant funds for LOUISIANA. That contract ran from Oct. 31, 2007, to Oct. 30, 2010. The firm was given an additional contract of $3 million for the period of Feb. 1, 2011, through June 3, 2011 for Katrina and Rita recovery grant funds. IEM’s $308 million contract is 14.5 times the size of Hunt, Guillot’s $21.2 million in contracts even though Hunt, Guillot oversaw the disbursement of nearly six times the amount in federal grants that IEM is responsible for.
IEM’s contract was not without CONTROVERSY, but it probably didn’t hurt that IEM and the company’s CEO, Madhu Beriwal, combined to contribute $15,000 to the campaign of Gov. John Bel Edwards.
But even putting aside all the outrageous administrative costs that are eating up dollars intended to help flood victims, here is the one overriding factor that leads writers like Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) and others to write INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS about the incestuous relationship between natural disasters and corruption?
Could it be that 19 months after thousands of Louisiana residents were forced out of their homes in South Louisiana, only $207 million of a total allocation of $1.3 billion for reconstruction has been approved and checks written for only $60 million even as administrative costs mount?
Could it be that a visit to observe activities at Restore Louisiana headquarters reminds visitors of the organizational skills of a sack of rats in a burning meth lab?
Could it be the frustration encountered by State Rep. Rogers Pope who, first told he qualified for an SBA loan of $250,000 (even though he never applied) but later told it was actually for a lesser amount, responded that he was not interested in a loan of any description but that $50,000 was nevertheless deposited in his bank account by the SBA—and when he insisted again that he did not want the money, was charged $384 in interest for the week that it was in his bank account? (for those of you who may be wondering, that computes to an annual interest rate of 40 percent.) And get this: Pope is a member of the Restore Louisiana Task Force and even he can’t deal with the feds.
Could it be that an applicant who applied for assistance was told that because he had obtained an SBA loan of $124,000, he was ineligible for a grant? The person in question here was yours truly and I was told that the loan was considered a benefit. I’m a 74-year-old retiree on a fixed income, with a brand-new $124,000 mortgage and I’m supposed to consider that a benefit?
What’s more, I’m told, even if I had been offered the loan, and turned it down, I’d still be ineligible because it was offered. (I think that’s what’s called a Catch-22.) And just to add insult to injury, I was told (after at least four separate on-site inspections by FEMA, Restore Louisiana, and Shelter at Home) I was only allowed $60,000 for reconstruction (someone needs to tell my contractor who charged what I considered to be a reasonable fee of $90,000 to make my home livable again—the remainder went to replace furniture and appliances).
I was told at the time of receiving the news of my ineligibility that I could, of course, appeal. “But the appeal won’t do any good,” the nice man said, “because we’re only going by the rules established by FEMA and HUD guidelines.” (A Catch-22 variable.)
It’s the kind of FUBAR guvmint that can send you to a padded room where you’re allowed only crayons as a means of communication.
And if you think I’m angry, consider the frustration level of Stephen Winham of St. Francisville.
Winham, often a LouisianaVoice guest columnist, for 12 years was the state’s budget director, serving under three governors, so he, of all people, should be accustomed to navigating the confusing waters of state bureaucracy. He was, nevertheless, finally moved to send the following email to an official of Restore Louisiana:
I have NEVER seen as poorly run a program as Restore Louisiana and I have seen some poorly run programs in my 21 years of state budget analysis. If the contractor for whom you work represents the benefits of privatizing public services we are in deep manure, particularly since our worst governor ever, Bobby Jindal, moved us to new heights in that direction.
I have talked on the phone and communicated with your company many times. I did not initially apply because I knew I was not eligible. I allowed one of your employees to talk me into applying anyhow, so I did – I assume this was done to get the numbers up. In subsequent steps, it was confirmed I was never eligible and should never have bent to the pressure put on me to apply. In other words, I was officially ruled ineligible months ago.
This correspondence and any phone conversations I might have with you would be a waste of my time – your company is apparently going to get its money no matter what so I have no interest in saving you money. Your company has spent $75 million on itself so far and only disbursed $60 million to the people who really need it – the homeowners. Do you not see a problem with that?
Although I am not eligible, I have a sister-in-law who is. My wife and I have tried to help her work through the many meaningless steps necessary to get her Restore Louisiana grant and she has not gotten a dime yet. My wife has hauled her down to Celtic Studios more than once. She has had visits from what I assume are project managers/coordinators many times. She has completed the necessary paperwork at every step. She has been advised of the amount of her “award” (her part of the $207 million in reported awards, $147 million of which apparently remain undisbursed), but has gotten ZERO. The people who live across the street from my East Baton Rouge property just started LAST WEEK on work to restore their home pursuant to their Restore Louisiana “award”
I think your company is taking the public for a ride – oh, I know, this is federal money – I am doing my federal taxes today – I guess that never was my money to begin with, or something. These things should be block granted. If the eligible recipients take their grants down to a convenient casino and blow it rather than fixing their homes, that’s their problem and it is also better than creating what to me is essentially a pyramid of contractors and sub-contractors each getting their golden crumbs as the grants trickle down to the people who should be getting the money.
Sorry for taking this out on you and you probably haven’t even read this far, but on the off chance you have, LEAVE ME ALONE and devote your attention to eligible recipients many of whom have been waiting over a year and a half for relief.
Your federal—and state—guvmint hard at work for you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. The best we can hope for is that we never need the their “help” in the future.
(Editor’s note: for the record, a class-action lawsuit is being considered because of the discriminatory policies of HUD and FEMA. More details on that as they are forthcoming.)
Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Budget, Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Louisiana Purchase, Politicians on March 6, 2018| 4 Comments »
When Ronald Reagan wanted to push a bill through a recalcitrant House ruled by Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill (as bad as he was, O’Neill was still head and shoulders above current Speaker Paul Ryan in terms of leadership and ability), he would go on national television and appeal directly to the American voters.
Gov. John Bel Edwards should have taken his cue from the Gipper. Instead of taking to the TV airwaves to make his case directly to Louisiana citizens, he has chosen to go it alone against an obstinate, arrogate, no-solutions-to-offer Republican legislature who, to quote my grandfather (and I’m cleaning it up a bit) wouldn’t urinate on him if he were on fire.
But while Edwards has not displayed the leadership one would expect of a West Point graduate, neither has this Jell-O-backboned legislature done anything to warrant any bouquets. The word obstructionism comes to mind immediately as a one-word description of this bunch.
There is not a shred of doubt that Republican legislators are still taking their cue from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Grover Norquist. Remember in 2015, when 11 legislators WROTE to Norquist to obtain his permission to vote for Jindal’s tax swap?
Since when does Grover Norquist speak for the voters of Louisiana?
But, believe it or not, this rant isn’t about the legislator’s ability to waste some $900,000 on a special session that failed to produce a solution to the looming state financial disaster. Retired State Budget Director Stephen Winham covered that in yesterday’s post.
Instead, in a classic illustration of how to violate journalistic practices by burying the lede this deep in the story, this is about legislators’ real priorities while in Baton Rouge at the governor’s call to do something—anything—to avert the fiscal cliff that awaits next June.
Citizens routinely flock to Baton Rouge during legislative sessions to testify before committees on their positions on various issues. If you’ve ever sat in on any of these committee meetings, it’s apparent that legislators are just going through the motions of pretending to listen to the voice of the people. In reality, they converse among themselves during citizens’ testimonies, walk out of the committee room to take a phone call, or generally get that patently political glazed look as they wait for the testimony to end so that the committee can proceed with its predetermined vote.
The real reason many legislators were in Baton Rouge for this session was not to tend to the people’s business but to line their own pockets, or more precisely, their campaign treasuries.
Beginning on Jan. 31, and continuing through the special session which began on Feb. 19 and until March 12 (one week from today), 41 campaign fundraisers for 46 legislators were scheduled by lobbyists, including the Beer Industry League, the Louisiana Restaurant Association (LRA), the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association (LOGA), and Southern Strategy Group in such partying-hardy locations (where the real legislative work gets done) as:
One of those, on March 8 (Thursday), for State Sen. Eric LaFleur, will feature an appearance by Gov. Edwards. Of course, the Beer Industry League keeps legislators plied with alcohol at each of these locations, thus insuring their undying loyalty when key votes come up.
It’s uncertain if the suggested contribution amounts reflect the legislator’s relative worth to the organization, but following is the schedule of fundraisers hosted by the various lobbyists:
Twenty-eight state place RESTRICTIONS on campaign CONTRIBUTIONS and Louisiana is one of those—theoretically.
Louisiana Revised Statute 24:56 addresses PROHIBITED ACTIVITY.
Louisiana RS 18:1505.2 Q(b) also says: “No legislator or any principal or subsidiary committee of a legislator shall accept or deposit a contribution, loan, or transfer of funds or accept and use any in-kind contribution, as defined in this Chapter, for his own campaign during a regular legislative session.”
So, yes, there are restrictions against legislators soliciting or accepting campaign contributions during legislative sessions, but a close look at the wording gives lawmakers—the ones who write the laws—a loophole you could drive a truck through.
And that loophole is the words “regular legislative session.” The fiasco that ended on Monday was not a regular session but a special session. In fact, it was the fifth special session called to deal with the state’s fiscal condition, all of which failed to do so.
But campaign contributions are another matter. Where legislators are unable/unwilling to fix the state’s fiscal problems, they certainly see to their own financial well-being. And if they can do so while on the taxpayer clock for $156 per diem (Latin: per day) and mileage payments to and from Baton Rouge, so much the better. Church Lady from Saturday Night Live had a term for that: “Isn’t that special.” (Pun intended).
One observer said, “It’s almost insulting that they (legislators) even waste our time and money on these hours-long committee meetings where they are supposed to be considering the voice of the people who take time away from their jobs and families with the naïve perception that their voices actually matter when it is abundantly clear that decisions are controlled and bought by a small group of power associations. Just watch the process unfold. These groups will prevail I their positions no matter how many logical facts and explanations are presented by the other side (and often when the prevailing associations have absolutely no logical facts or explanations).”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Posted in Corruption, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Politicians, Taxes on March 5, 2018| 17 Comments »
By Stephen Winham
Guest Columnist
In the unfunny joke that was the latest “special” [not] legislative session there were no real surprises. After much bickering over a small gobble-de-gook of incomplete solutions and ideas with no goal beyond getting 70 House votes for just about anything, the session finally ended with a whimper that anybody should have been able to predict after 15 days of inaction. We are all left to ask why this debacle ever took place at all.
In the weeks leading up to the session Gov. Edwards threatened to not call it if an agreement on what to do about the “fiscal cliff” was not imminent. Showing a distinct lack of decisive leadership, he not only went back on this threat, but failed, himself, to present a concrete proposal with a combination of cuts and taxes that would yield a recurring balance. He never even really tried and seemed to say he was tired of doing so.
The governor presented a list of “cuts” he said he had already made, too many of which were not really cuts and a few of which were apparently duplicated. Even the unambiguous cuts on the list begged the question of what has really changed as their result? What pain has been inflicted and on whom? At the very least, what services have been diminished?
What evidence did the governor present that his appointees will be held accountable for making government as efficient as possible in the future, so people can have faith the revenues raised or retained will be spent wisely? Ask anybody on the street if they believe state government is improving in that regard and the answer will most often be a resounding “No.” This is particularly true of people who read newspapers and political blogs, listen to talk radio, and watch local television news where negative reports about state government are routine.
It is just plain common sense that people want answers to these questions. If the governor has made meaningful cuts he should be able to provide proof. In other words, it should be possible to demonstrate the effects (not just dollar amounts) in such a way that people can judge whether the cuts should have been made and whether additional significant cuts should be made and, most importantly, specifically where?
For the coming year, the governor presented a list of cuts, but defended none of them as cuts he believed should be made. On the revenue side, he presented a package that didn’t even fund these cuts and which he only halfheartedly supported. About the only hope reflected in the governor’s proposal was that the mediocrity that keeps us on the bottom of practically every list of good things could continue.
The state senate waited the whole session for the house to give them something meaningful to do – Revenue bills had to originate in the house by law. The Senate returned one bill providing tax relief to flood victims and the House concurred.
Despite having plenty of time because of a temporary two-year bridge, solid research of all pertinent issues, and promises to come forth with a plan to simply balance the budget, the house did nothing of the kind. Instead of presenting a balanced plan of cuts and revenues, or even cuts alone, the house argued over pieces of the puzzle on the sheer basis of whether enough people would vote for them – what deals could be cut. And cutting deals to get votes does not necessarily work to the advantage of the state or its citizens.
There was never a serious attempt to construct an enduring solution with more than a trace of desperately needed fiscal reform. If there was a goal, it was to continue what we have had for over a decade – a questionable and temporary balance that makes as few voters and special interests angry as possible. Thrown in were a handful of feel-good measures including ostensible Medicaid reform, a new spending cap proposal, and a promise of enhanced government transparency – none of which should require legislation. Accomplishing their goals should be part of responsible governing. Nobody was made happy -except those who think we should go over the cliff and see what happens.
One measure was anointed the pre-requisite and centerpiece for everything else and every day of deliberation the argument was put forth, “If we can’t renew ¼ of the expiring sales tax, we can’t move forward.” What was so magical about that quarter of a penny? Was it important to continue to punish the poor at least a little for being poor as a starting point, or what? As its author, Rep. Dwight himself pointed out, the prospects for passage of his bill never really improved as the session went on. Worse, it only took care of about a third of the gap and there was no clear plan for filling the rest of it from anywhere. In a word, the bill was worthless.
Representatives Barry Ivey and Kenny Havard stood out as sincerely interested in doing something to help the state and its people move forward. They both repeatedly called out their colleagues for hypocrisy and empty rhetoric. It is unfortunate Ivey did not get his February 28 motion to adjourn sine die on the floor and passed. At least it would have saved the taxpayers the $60,000+ per day costs of the remaining days. Sharon Hewitt and a growing number of others at least had sense enough to see the wisdom in that. Always rational, Rep. Julie Stokes attempted to move members in a progressive direction despite her Republican pedigree. Speaker Pro Tempore Walt Leger offered progressive income tax measures to lukewarm support. A few others voiced frustration but did little to steer what they clearly viewed as a doomed session toward success.
Republican Caucus Chair Lance Harris, himself a true expert at it, said he was tired of the blame game. Rob Shadoin agreed and restated the obvious when he said the session accomplished nothing except failing the people. Speaking of blame, many people were happy to place it on the Black Caucus and their fellow Democrats. If they were to blame for anything, it was for trying to get at a least a minuscule amount of progressive fiscal reform wedged in somewhere.
And speaking of partisan politics, the T Rex in the House was the desire on the part of Republicans to make the governor look as bad as possible. Helping with that were the special interests, including that beacon of conservative light, Americans for Prosperity, founded and funded by the Koch brothers and claiming a membership of over 3 million right-minded people. How many of our elected officials pay homage to its agenda? Its representative at the session wanted the session to go the distance in furtherance of the Louisiana Checkbook, a [non]panacea for the masses that will probably never be satisfactorily implemented regardless of legislation. How many other budget reform laws languish in the books apparently ignored by our policy makers? And, even when stumbled across, there is always the easy out of no money to implement them. Forget about the will to do so.
The special session served one critical function to anybody who paid any attention to what went on. It showed the utter lack of effective leadership in our state’s government. It revealed who among our elected officials has the best interests of our state and its people at heart, i. e., who literally supports our form of government – and who doesn’t.
We can’t immediately recall the people who continue to ignore those of us without deep pockets, but we can replace them at election time – assuming people willing to truly represent us offer themselves for election – a daunting proposition at best. Many current officeholders, with the validation of history, believe they don’t have to represent the bulk of us to be re-elected. All they must do is get enough money from special interests to generate a flood of propaganda and false promises to fool enough people into voting for them.
Let’s prove them wrong.
(Editor’s note: Stephen Winham is the retired Director of the Louisiana Executive Budget Office, having served in that capacity from 1988 to 2000.)
Posted in Corruption, Elections, Ethics, House, Senate, Media on February 28, 2018| 28 Comments »
I’ve deliberately put LouisianaVoice on hold since the horrendous events at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in order to try and let my emotions level off somewhat. That’s because I couldn’t really write how I feel about the NRA, the failure of law enforcement to read the signs, and the incredibly simplistic and idiotic reactions of our Coward-in-Chief, who would have us believe, in hindsight, that he would have tried to save the day had he just been there.
You see, I have seven grandchildren, five of whom are in public schools (the other two are in college). I also have two daughters who are teachers. So, whenever I hear about a Columbine or a Sandy Hook or Parkland, it becomes very personal—and emotional—to me.
So, before it even gets to that point, don’t bother trying to label me as some sort of idealistic liberal who wants to take you precious guns away—unless you happen to be the owner of an AR-15, a gun no civilian has any business possessing in the first place.
I have guns and I haven’t heard of a single person who wants to take them away from me. (If you think differently, please provide name of the person or persons and any backup data you may have to support your theory. Otherwise, I will just assume you’re drinking the NRA Kool-Aid and you’re regurgitating their nonsense.)
Two things are important to consider here:
Other than the senseless shootings themselves, the most outrageous thing to come out of all this is the nonsensical blathering of the conspiracy theorists who insist Sandy Hook, Columbine, Las Vegas and yes, Parkland, were staged by those who want to justify seizing our guns. Or that survivors of the shootings who want something done about the easy access to assault weapons are not students at all, but “CRISIS ACTORS.” What a load of unadulterated, shameless crap! Those who would attack these kids as political operatives represent the very lowest bottom feeders on the planet.
CNN’s (that lying, liberal, left-wing CNN—as opposed to that beacon of journalistic integrity Faux News) ANDERSON COOPER (and yes, I’m keenly aware that he’s gay and such an obvious threat to family values and the American way—as opposed to that towering symbol of virtue and all things good, the female genitalia-grabbing Trump) probably said it best when he described the conspiracy theories at “sick.” And, now that he’s back from promoting the Trump brand in India, you may wish to ask why Donald Trump, Jr., “liked” the Facebook posting by one of those conspiracy theorists.
You certainly have to admire Sen. Marco Rubio whose reactions to the shooting were described by Fred Guttenberg, the father of one of the victims, as “PATHETICALLY WEAK.” Rubio was even more PITIFUL in responding to a student’s request to vow he would not accept NRA contributions. Instead of being a man, Rubio said, “…(NRA) people buy into my agenda.” He even attempted to convince a hostile audience that the influence of the NRA “comes not from money. The influence comes from the millions of people who support that agenda.”
What a crock. Here’s a news flash, Rubio: representative democracy is not about donors reflecting your agenda, it’s supposed to be you reflecting—and representing—the agenda of your constituency, 70 percent of whom demand something be done about access to assault weapons. Your response to that young man only served to confirm the fact that you are just another political whore.
If influence does not come from money, then why the hell does the NRA, Big Pharma, oil and gas interests, financial institutions, military contractors, and cable television, to name only a few, spend untold millions of dollars lobbying Congress and contributing to political campaigns? Why do the corporate interests fight so hard to defend Citizens United? Rubio looked right into the eyes of that student and lied through his pearly white teeth. And he did it with a straight face.
Of course, the Florida legislature, in a proud display of courage and religious-patriotic-moral zeal, refused to act on restricting access to assault weapons but did advance a bill requiring schools to display “In God We Trust” signs and another declaring pornography as dangerous.
Apparently, this courageous bunch of morons doesn’t consider AR-15s dangerous. But CHELSEA ROMO might beg to differ. She is a survivor of last October’s Las Vegas shooting rampage that left 58 others dead. If you’re squeamish, you may wish to skip this story, but it’s a great example of what AR-15s are designed for: killing human beings.
And much has been made of the Broward County deputy sheriff who waiting outside the school while the shooting was taking place instead of entering the building and engaging the shooter. Coral Springs police, in fact, claim that there were actually three deputies who remained outside the building.
Sheriff Scott Israel expressed his disgust that his deputy/deputies did not engage the shooter but as always, there are two sides to any story.
First of all, the deputies would have been going up against a semi-automatic assault weapon while they were armed most probably with only a sidearm. Not good odds, perhaps even suicidal. So, let’s not be too quick to judge the deputies who, after all, are political appointees.
Which brings up another interesting point. Israel’s detractors—and it appears there are many—point out that he has PADDED HIS PAYROLL with hangers-on and political supporters. His self-proclaimed “great leadership” aside, he seems to have devoted far more attention to returning political favors in his hiring decisions than to actual qualifications for the positions he filled—much like sheriffs across the gret stet of Looziana.
And of course, WAYNE LaPIERRE, the high potentate of the NRA, lost no time going on the attack before a friendly, carefully-chosen audience at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (C-PAC)—one of our very own Bobby Jindal’s favorite haunts.
Exploiting the Parkland tragedy for political gain, LaPierre, the eager opportunist, accused “opportunists” of using the Parkland tragedy “for political gain” in one of the most curious examples of circular logic found anywhere. LaPierre, of course, was given center stage for his diatribe by Faux News.
Isn’t it interesting to know that we’re living in a time where the plea to stop shooting our kids is regarded as a “liberal talking point” by the pro-life, pro-gun, God-fearing segment of society?
And then there was the NRA mouthpiece DANA LOESCH who had the gonads to say that “Many in legacy media (whatever that is) love mass shootings.”
You bitch. Name me one person, just one, in the media (I don’t even know what she means by “legacy” media) who loves mass shootings. With one incredibly stupid, ill-advised, ill-informed statement—no, not ill-informed; you knew exactly what you were saying, you lying, simple-minded idiot—you have libeled an entire group of people and I consider myself one of that group. My degree is in journalism and I made a living at the trade for four decades and picked up an award or two along the way so I can rightfully resent the hell out of your implication and your accusation.
Like nearly everyone else, we entered our chosen field not for the purpose of exploiting tragedy but as a calling (it certainly wasn’t for the money). If we happened upon a chance to expose frauds like Dana Loesch and Wayne LaPierre, then we consider our jobs a public service. You’re welcome.
(As a side note, it would be interesting to know if the NRA headquarters is a concealed carry zone and if its entrances are equipped with metal detectors.)
And just why is it, anyway, that the Second Amendment is so much dearer than say, the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures but which is routinely violated…and the NRA never makes a peep?
Or the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to a speedy trial but which is often ignored…and the NRA utters not a word?
Or the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble peaceably but whenever it is exercised, heads often get busted…and the NRA is silent?
Now, to the biggest fraud of them all: Donald Trump, aka The Trumpinator, aka Donnie Bone Spur.
The Trumpinator appears to have used the same speech writer as LaPierre. Either that, or he simply PLAGIARIZED LaPierre is using the same “harden our schools,” “soft,” “gun-free zone” phraseology in his White House talk as LaPierre had used hours earlier at C-PAC. (by the way, I would love to see LaPierre, Dana Loesch, or Trump take their talking points away from the friendly C-PAC audiences and to the parents and students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.)
But as bad theater as that was, it paled in comparison to his disgraceful meeting with shooting victims from Parkland, Columbine, and Sandy Hook. He couldn’t even hold an informal meeting without going in with crib notes on how to be spontaneous and empathetic—including a written reminder to say “I hear you.” You had to write that down to remember what to say? Seriously?
(The “45” om his cuff is to remind the Great Unwashed (us) that he is the 45th POTUS)
And his suggestion that teachers be armed would have been laughable had it not been so incredibly shortsighted and ignorant.
Police officers who are Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified only manage to hit their targets 18 percent of the time in real-life shootouts and only 30 percent of the time when suspects do not return fire. So, help me understand: Trump is suggesting that teachers, who are not POST certified, will be the best line of defense in case of an attack by someone wielding an AR-15?
Two questions:
And there’s this: If my daughters wanted to become firearms proficient, they would have opted for military careers instead of becoming educators.
Of Course, the Trumpster, as he so often does, tried to walk back his suggestion by saying he was referring to teachers who are “retired from the Marines.” Really? How many teachers do you know who are retired Marines?
As might be expected of such a playground-type solution to a real problem, it was roundly CRITICIZED by those who know better—and that’s just about everyone on the planet.
But far and away the most audacious, most self-serving, most self-delusional, most indescribably derisory thing The Trumpinator has uttered his entire presidency (even more so than his “very stable genius” blathering) came when he said he would have entered the school unarmed had he just been there. “I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon,” he said in his criticism of the deputy who did not engage the Parkland shooter.
BONE SPUR TRUMPINATOR: “I’LL BE BACK BIGLY. COVFEFE.”
That remark left Sarah Huckabee Sanders somewhat dubious.
The only place Trump might ever consider running into would be into the girls’ locker room.
The Washington Post observed of that flamboyant boast of Bone Spur Donnie, who received five deferments during the Vietnam War (one for bone spurs): “Run into a shooting scene? He won’t even go into a conference room with Mueller.”
$2.50 each or three for $6.00
Louisiana Voice 