Missouri's gun law should allow cities to require permits, St. Louis mayor says

Mayor Lyda Krewson, a Democrat Idiot

The mayor of St. Louis said Wednesday she’s asking Missouri lawmakers and the state’s Republican governor to reverse a 2017 law that makes it legal for gun owners without a felony record to carry guns without a permit in the state, according to a report.
Mayor Lyda Krewson, a Democrat, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch she asked Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, to support new legislation that would allow some cities over a certain size — or at least St. Louis --- to require concealed weapons permits. She added that a measure at least partially reversing the 2017 law would benefit the St Louis Police Department and its officers.
“This is for our police department. Our police don’t have the tools they need to take guns off the street,” Krewson told the newspaper Wednesday. Krewson also brought up the law at a monthly board planning meeting between St. Louis area political leaders earlier this month. After the meeting, she told the Post-Dispatch: “Having a permit to carry a gun is really not a big ask. It’s for our police officers.”

“Having a permit to carry a gun is really not a big ask. It’s for our police officers.”
— St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson

Her remarks Wednesday came a day after Parson rejected a request from the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus to hold an emergency legislative session to address gun violence following a bloody weekend in St. Louis that left three children dead within 48 hours. At least 13 children have been killed in shootings in St. Louis this year as the city grapples a rising homicide rate, the newspaper reported.
Parson, who voted as a state senator to loosen concealed carry requirements, did not address whether or not he’d work with Krewson in reversing the 2017 statute, saying during a Wednesday news conference that he’s leaving that up to legislative branch. He said he would consider allocating resources from the Missouri State Highway Patrol to help combat gun violence in St. Louis.
“I talked to the mayor about this --- we’ve got to find out some solutions to these kids getting shot in the streets of St. Louis, and Kansas City, or wherever it is in the state of Missouri,” Parson said. “We all better put our best game on right now to find a solution to this problem.”

"We’ve got to find out some solutions to these kids getting shot in the streets of St. Louis, and Kansas City, or wherever it is in the state of Missouri."
— Missouri Gov. Mike Parson

The leader of the state's GOP-run Senate addressed St. Louis gun violence Monday but failed to propose a feasible solution to combatting the issue.
“Obviously, anytime we see a rise in this kind of violence it is a problem,” state Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz, a Republican, told the Post-Dispatch. “But I don’t know if anything is on the horizon. I don’t know if anyone has the answer.”
Also Wednesday, the St. Louis comptroller slammed Krewson for allegedly delaying the launch of an emergency crime prevention program within the city. The city’s budgets allocated $500,000 to hire an outside organization to run a crime prevention program under a one-year contract.

“Only after a public outcry did the mayor’s office feel compelled to address the people’s concerns ... another week has passed, and the Comptroller’s Ofc has not received a contract for Cure Violence,” Comptroller Darlene Green wrote on her personal Twitter account.
On Aug. 20, Krewson wrote Comptroller Darlene Green asking her office to bypass the city’s lengthy contract selection process and fast-track a contract for Cure Violence, a Chicago-based non-profit dedicated to crime reduction. Krewson’s office said they submitted a proposed contract to the non-profit for review and are waiting for a response before sending it to the comptroller.

Trump tears into Lawrence O’Donnell, media over ‘totally false’ Russia report: ‘ALL APOLOGIZE!’

President Trump on Thursday blasted Lawrence O’Donnell and the media at large after the MSNBC host was forced to retract an unverified report he shared on his show this week that tied Trump’s finances to Russia.
Calling the report "totally false," the president demanded that the media as a whole apologize for “inaccurate reporting.”
“Crazy Lawrence O’Donnell, who has been calling me wrong from even before I announced my run for the Presidency, even being previously forced by NBC to apologize, which he did while crying, for things he said about me & The Apprentice, was again forced to apologize, this time ... for the most ridiculous claim of all, that Russia, Russia, Russia, or Russian oligarchs, co-signed loan documents for me, a guarantee,” Trump tweeted.
“Totally false, as is virtually everything else he, and much of the rest of the LameStream Media, has said about me for years. ALL APOLOGIZE!” he continued.
Minutes later, he added: “The totally inaccurate reporting by Lawrence O’Donnell, for which he has been forced by NBC to apologize, is NO DIFFERENT than the horrible, corrupt and fraudulent Fake News that I (and many millions of GREAT supporters) have had to put up with for years. So bad for the USA!”
The president’s tweets come after O’Donnell and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow discussed Tuesday night how Trump was “able to obtain loans when no one else would loan him any money.”
O’Donnell then hinted that he “may have some information” that would “add understanding to that, if true.”
“I stress ‘if true,’ because this is a single source who has told me that Deutsche Bank obtained tax returns…this single source close to Deutsche Bank has told me that Donald Trump’s loan documents there show he has co-signers. That’s how he was able to obtain those loans and that the co-signers are Russian oligarchs.”
Maddow, stunned, replied: “What? Really?”
O’Donnell added “that would explain every kind word Donald Trump has ever said about Russia and Vladimir Putin if his information is accurate.”
On Wednesday morning the White House blasted the report, and later in the day Trump’s legal team penned a letter to NBCUniversal demanding a retraction and an apology for the “aforementioned false and defamatory” reporting and threatened to take legal action.
“This is one of the reasons that a majority of Americans have lost trust in the media. Instead of applying ethics and standards to their reporting, journalists and left-wing outlets have weaponized the media, using it to attack and harass people with little to no regard for the truth,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told Fox News.
Later, O’Donnell kicked off his Wednesday night show by apologizing for running the unverified report, after earlier in the day walking it back and referring to it as an “error in judgment.”
"Last night on this show, I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting," O'Donnell said.
“I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source,” he continued. “Had it gone through that process, I would not have been permitted to report it.  I should not have said it on-air or post it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so.”
Fox News’ Brian Flood and Joseph Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

Cal Thomas: 'Lost' generation abandoning traditional American values

There are people in every generation who believe the generation following theirs is either going to the dogs or will ruin the country.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll lends credence to that way of thinking, especially where Generation Z/millennials (those born in the mid-1990s to mid-2000s) and Generation X (those born in the early-to-mid 1960s to the early 1980s) are concerned.
The poll of 1,000 adults earlier this month found that “younger generations rate patriotism, religion and having children as less important to them than did young people two decades ago.”
The poll contrasts with a similar survey conducted by the Journal 21 years ago. When asked then which values were most important, respondents sounded like their parents and grandparents, saying “hard work, patriotism, commitment to religion and the goal of having children.”
Not only will these current findings likely impact next year’s election (most of those running for president with more than single-digit polling numbers are much older men and women and thus represent a generation gap), they could also have serious implications for the future of the country.
The founders and subsequent generations — perhaps excepting the Gilded Age and the horrors of slavery — mostly believed in the virtues younger people either now reject or approach with indifference.
How can this be? What has happened between the World War II generation, which gave so much so their children and grandchildren might enjoy the blessings of liberty, and the current generation, which seems cool to what once seemed to matter most?
Generalizations are always problematic, but I have lived long enough and witnessed the general decline to make some.
Prosperity is one explanation. People who make more money than previous generations and possess a lot of stuff seem less inclined to participate in community (how many of us know our neighbors, who are here today and move tomorrow?). Stuff and the personal satisfaction of achievement lead to a decline in one’s need for God — too much money, too little purpose.
Politicians become a god-substitute and politics their religion. Creeping secularism has affected theological truth to the point where people can believe whatever they want — or nothing at all — and escape correction. Heresy, even apostasy, has infiltrated many churches.
Then there is culture. Younger people are exposed to what we collectively call “media” more than any previous generation. Most of what constitutes culture proceeds from a singular worldview that denigrates, or does not promote, patriotism, belief in God and values previous generations not only took for granted, but instilled in their children.
Unrestricted abortion has cheapened how many young people view the value of human life. For growing numbers of the young, marriage has become passé as children witness the pain of their parents’ divorce and decide that living together without a formal, legal or spiritual commitment is better than risking the cost and pain of ending a marriage. For some, children are viewed as a financial burden and an intrusion on adult lifestyles.
Sociologists and historians will tell us these things are cyclical, like weather. That has been true in the past when spiritual revivals often followed a fallow period of faithlessness and a focus on self. I’m not sure that cycle will repeat with younger people, given what they are taught at public schools and in liberal universities.
The values that shaped and sustained America through economic downturns and wars had to be taught and instilled in the next generation. Today’s younger people, as reflected in the poll, seem intent on making their own rules (if they can be called rules) and creating their own gods.
They will eventually learn the impossibility of it all as their substitutions will fail them. The question is can America survive when our moral, spiritual and patriotic foundations are destroyed? If you don’t love your country, what’s the point of having one?

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell apologizes for unverified Trump-Russia report: 'We are retracting the story'

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell kicked off his show Wednesday night by apologizing for running an unverified report that directly tied President Trump's finances to Russia, which he retracted.
"Last night on this show, I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting," O'Donnell said. "I repeated statements a single source told me about the president's finances and loan documents with Deutsche Bank saying 'if true'-- as I discussed the information-- was simply not good enough. I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source. Had it gone through that process, I would not have been permitted to report it. I should not have said it on-air or post it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so."
He went on to acknowledge the letter he and NBCUniversal received by Trump's legal counsel demanding a retraction and an apology for the "aforementioned false and defamatory" reporting and threatened to take legal action.
"This afternoon, attorneys for the president sent us a letter asserting the story is false. They also demanded a retraction. Tonight, we are retracting the story," O'Donnell continued. "We don't know whether the information is inaccurate. The fact is we do know it wasn't ready for broadcast and for that I apologize."
On Tuesday night, O’Donnell and fellow far-left MSNBC host Rachel Maddow discussed how Trump was “able to obtain loans when no one else would loan him any money” when he tossed out the unverified speculation.
“I may have some information, in this next hour, which would add a great deal to their understanding of that, if true, and I’ll be discussing it here,” O’Donnell said. "I stress ‘if true,’ because this is a single source who has told me that Deutsche Bank obtained tax returns… this single source close to Deutsche Bank has told me that Donald Trump’s loan documents there show that he has co-signers. That’s how he was able to obtain those loans and that the co-signers are Russian oligarchs."
A stunned Maddow leaned back in her chair and responded, “What? Really?”
O’Donnell added “that would explain every kind word Donald Trump has ever said about Russia and Vladimir Putin” if his information is accurate.
The "Last Word" host and MSNBC were widely panned by critics for running the story, calling it "grossly irresponsible." The White House blasted the report, pointing to "left-wing outlets" that have "weaponized the media.
“This is one of the reasons that a majority of Americans have lost trust in the media. Instead of applying ethics and standards to their reporting, journalists and left-wing outlets have weaponized the media, using it to attack and harass people with little to no regard for the truth,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told Fox News.
O'Donnell took to Twitter earlier in the day and walked back the report, referring to it as an "error in judgment."
Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report.

Cartoons

President Trump nominates Eugene Scalia to Labor Secretary

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 3:20 PM PST – Tue. August 27, 2019

Longtime Labor Attorney Eugene Scalia is officially nominated to take over the role of White House labor secretary.

Eugene Scalia in 2012. Mr. Scalia, who was a top Labor Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.CreditCreditStephen Voss

President Trump made the decision Tuesday, tapping the son of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Back in July, the president first voiced his intent to nominate Scalia to the position. The decision came in the wake of the resignation of Alexander Acosta, amid scrutiny over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal in 2007.
Scalia was the top legal officer at the department, and a special assistant to Attorney General Barr during the George W. Bush administration.
Scalia will have his confirmation hearing when the Senate reconvenes after summer recess.

Barr books holiday party at Trump hotel, stoking ethics concerns ( he's using his own money)

At least he's not booking it in Mexico like the Democrats do!

Attorney General Bill Barr has booked a 200-person holiday party, complete with a four-hour open bar and buffet, at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., for Dec. 8 -- and though he's using his own money, the move is raising ethics concerns among some observers.
The Barr "Family Holiday Party" is expected to generate roughly $30,000 in revenue for the hotel, at a rate of some $135 per person plus $4,500 to rent the hotel's Presidential Ballroom, according to The Washington Post. The Post first reported on the arrangement on Tuesday.
Fox News later confirmed the details of Barr's contract with the Trump D.C. hotel. The shindig is not an official Justice Department event.
A DOJ official told Fox News that Barr initially booked the party at The Willard nearby, but the hotel later backed out because it had double-booked.
An administration source separately told The Post that the nearby Mayflower hotel was likewise unavailable.

The Trump International Hotel is slated to host the attorney general's holiday party on Dec. 8. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images, File)

"Career ethics officials were consulted and they determined that ethics rules did not prohibit him from hosting his annual party at the Trump hotel," the DOJ official told The Post.
Liz Hempowicz, the director of public policy at the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, said in an interview with the paper that the contract was bothersome, if not technically a violation of ethics rules.
"It creates the appearance that high-level political appointees or allies of the president may feel like they need to spend money at the president’s businesses as a show of loyalty, and that is something that makes me deeply uncomfortable and should make taxpayers deeply uncomfortable," Hempowicz said.
Barr has become a target for congressional Democrats, many of whom have said he sought to play down former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's conclusions from a long-running probe of Russian election meddling and hasn't provided other records. House Democrats also voted to hold Barr in criminal contempt this past July for allegedly stonewalling their efforts to investigate why the Trump administration sought to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Republicans have pointed out that Barr has released virtually all of Mueller's report, save for some legally mandated redactions, and have slammed the census probe as "political theater" given the ongoing negotiations between Democrats and the DOJ over the document productions.
News of Barr's impending holiday bash came as Democrats' legal challenges against Trump's business interests have hit a major snag. Last week, a federal court judge ruled that Trump could challenge congressional Democrats' Emoluments Clause lawsuit against him immediately, saying the litigation raised the "unsettled" constitutional question of whether politicians had standing to sue a sitting president for running businesses catering to international clients.

The entrance to the Trump International Hotel in Washington. (AP, File)

Judge Emmet Sullivan, whom President Bill Clinton appointed, ruled this summer that the 200 congressional Democrats did have the legal standing to sue Trump. But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Sullivan and instructed him to reconsider the unprecedented separation-of-powers implications of the case.
On further review, Sullivan, whom then-President Ronald Reagan had appointed to his first judgeship, rejected the Democrats' request to pursue discovery, including financial documents, from dozens of Trump's businesses.
Democrats also requested an immediate injunction barring Trump from making money on his international businesses, even as they acknowledged that the Trump Organization has already established a “voluntary procedure by which [it] identifies and donates to the U.S. Treasury profits from foreign government patronage at its hotels and similar businesses."
Instead, Sullivan allowed Trump the rare opportunity to pursue a so-called interlocutory, or mid-case, appeal, given the "substantial ground for difference of opinion" on whether the Democrats could sue the president on Emoluments Clause grounds.
A federal appeals court, earlier this year, dismissed a similar Emoluments Clause lawsuit filed against Trump by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia.
"I got sued on a thing called emoluments. Emoluments. You ever hear of the word? Nobody ever heard of it before," Trump said at an event in Pennsylvania earlier this month.
"What it is, is presidential harassment, because this thing is costing me a fortune, and I love it," Trump went on. "I love it because I’m making the lives of other people much, much better."
Fox News' Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Here’s why the House and Senate engage in a parliamentary dance during lengthy respites

The United States Senate is the only institution in the world which would wait two hours and 17 minutes to do something which lasts 32 seconds.
The Senate was supposed to meet in a brief “pro forma” session at 10 Tuesday morning. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was scheduled to be the only senator present, perfunctorily gaveling the Senate to order and then gaveling out a few minutes later.
But Rubio was delayed. Only Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and a few other Senate staffers milled about the chamber for the ensuing swatch of time, waiting dutifully for Florida’s senior senator to arrive.
Rubio finally materialized at 12:17 pm. He took his seat on the dais, received brief instructions from MacDonough and then clasped the hourglass-shaped ivory gavel. Rubio rapped the gavel once on the dais.
“The Senate will come to order and the clerk will read a communication to the Senate,” said Rubio.
A Senate clerk then announced that the Senate had in fact designated Rubio “under Rule I, Paragraph 3” to preside over the Senate Tuesday in his capacity as “a senator from the state of Florida.”
The clerk’s boilerplate proclamation about Rubio took more time than anything Rubio said.
“So under the previous order, the Senate stands adjourned until 5 pm on Friday, August 30th, 2019,” said Rubio.
The Florida Republican thumped the gavel again and the Senate concluded its day – two hours, 16 minutes and 28 seconds later than everyone thought Tuesday.
The House has been on the “August recess” since late July. The Senate started its recess a few days later earlier this month. Neither body is slated to return to a bona fide session until September 9. Yet, at least one lawmaker of the majority party has shown up at three-day intervals to perform this quick “gavel in, gavel out” exercise, which consumes about a half a minute in the Senate and only three or four minutes in the House.
There’s a reason why the House and Senate engage in this parliamentary dance during lengthy respites like August, in the spring, Thanksgiving, Christmas and around other holidays.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the House and Senate to meet every three days unless they have “Consent of the other” to not get together. If the House and Senate don’t want to convene every three days, both must approve what’s called an “adjournment resolution.” If the House and Senate okay the adjournment resolution, that’s it. Congress could be gone for weeks at a time without anyone showing up to hit the gavel.
It’s de rigueur these days for the House and Senate to eschew an adjournment resolution. Here’s why: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the “Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” In other words, if the House and Senate were truly out of session for a prolonged period of time, President Trump could bypass the Senate’s confirmation process on everything from judges to cabinet officials to ambassadors. Those figures would then take office without the Senate’s “advice and consent.”
Democrats control the House now. So, as a defensive move, House Democrats won’t let the Senate adjourn for more than three days and refuses to approve an adjournment resolution. House Republicans took the same approach with President Obama when the GOP was in the majority some years ago.
That compels the House and Senate to huddle in these abridged meetings. After all, “pro forma” is Latin for “a matter of form.” The sessions look like regular get-togethers of the House and Senate. But they’re really not.
That said, it’s not unheard of for the House or Senate to actually conduct some legislative business during what at one point was designed to be a pro forma session. Such was the case earlier this year when the House attempted on three separate occasions to approve a disaster aid bill with just a skeleton staff on hand. The Senate had already passed the plan. The House just needed to sync up. But Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX), Thomas Massie (R-KY) and John Rose (R-TN) surfaced on different days to singularly block the efforts.
Marco Rubio isn’t the only lawmaker to find themselves running behind to preside. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) showed up 18 minutes late to do the honors for 34 seconds during an August 2017 pro forma confab. Paul was stuck in traffic. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) also had trouble getting to Washington for a pro forma session in 2016 following the Republican convention. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) stood in for Lee.
Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) never made it to a 2008 pro forma session. The Senate allowed then-Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson to preside without a senator present. Fox is told that was an error. Such a figure like the Secretary of Senate might be permitted to preside, provided the Vice President or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate aren’t available. Vice President Pence is President of the Senate. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is the President Pro Tempore, the most senior member of the majority party.
Pro forma sessions sometimes give lawmakers a chance to score some press on important issues of the day.
There was wonder on Capitol Hill if House Democrats may try to do something around the House’s first pro forma session scheduled this month after the massacres in El Paso and Dayton. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) was the lone Democrat to preside over the conclave. Sarbanes went through the standard patter of the pro forma session but made no mention of the shootings. Sarbanes did not address a small contingent of reporters afterward in the hall. Yet that night, the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent around a press release from the Congressman’s office. The statement proclaimed “Sarbanes Leads Call for Gun Safety Reform.” The release went on to say that “After Presiding Over the U.S. House of Representatives as Speaker Pro Tempore, Congressman Sarbanes Urged Majority Leader McConnell to Pass Bipartisan Gun Safety Measures.”
But, the Sarbanes statement was as “pro forma” as the session earlier in the day. The Congressman made no reference to the shootings from the dais and never spoke to reporters afterward.
So the pro forma sessions will continue. Just not this August and September – but likely into the future. And, they usually happen on time.

Trump mocks NYT's Bret Stephens: My resort doesn't have 'bedbugs,' but he's 'loaded up with them!'

President Trump slammed New York Times columnist Bret Stephens on Tuesday night, suggesting he's "loaded up" with bedbugs — not his properties.
After the president floated the idea of hosting next year's G-7 summit at his Doral resort outside of Miami, Fla., a report resurfaced that this resort had settled a lawsuit in 2017 after a New Jersey man named Eric Linder alleged he woke up one morning at Trump's property with bites all over his body.
Trump denied of having any bedbugs at his resort Tuesday morning, blaming "Radical Left Democrats" for spreading "nasty rumors."
However, the president took the opportunity on Tuesday night to repeat his denial about the alleged bedbug problem and hit one of his outspoken critics from the Times.
"A made up Radical Left Story about Doral bedbugs, but Bret Stephens is loaded up with them!" Trump tweeted. "Been calling me wrong for years, along with the few remaining Never Trumpers - All Losers!"
The op-ed columnist had been widely mocked after he responded to a Twitter user who jokingly referred to him as a bed bug in reaction to reports of a pest infestation at the Times newsroom.
"The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens," George Washington University associate professor Dave Karpf quipped.
This tweet apparently angered Stephens enough for him to email both Karpf and the GWU provost, which Karpf shared on Twitter Monday night.
"Someone just pointed out a tweet you wrote about me, calling me a 'bedbug,'" Stephens began the email. "I'm often amazed about the things supposedly decent people are prepared to say about other people – people they've never met – on Twitter. I think you've set a new standard."
The Times columnist went on to invite Karpf to his home, meet his wife and children, and then "call me 'bedbug' to my face."
"That would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your part," Stephens told the college professor. "I promise to be courteous no matter what you have to say. Maybe it will make you feel better about yourself."
Stephens has since deactivated his Twitter account.

San Francisco Cartoons