Dem candidates embrace gun control in campaign for House takeover

As the Democrats shift to the left on a number of issues from health care to immigration, they’ve already gone all in on one of the most contentious issues around -- gun control
A study by The Wall Street Journal found that of the 63 candidates on the House Democrats’ campaign arm’s list of seats to flip in November, 62 support expanded background checks for gun purchases.
While Dems have long pushed for gun control, there was a time when some candidates ignored the issue, included gun rights as part of their platform or even allied with the National Rifle Association. But support for gun control among candidates has hardened in recent years after a rash of high-profile mass shootings including at schools -- most recently the February shooting in Parkland, Florida.
That shift is being reflected in activity on the campaign trail, with more Democrats being more vocal on gun control and their advocacy of proposals such as background checks.
There has been a spike in spending on ads by Democrats that focus on gun control across gubernatorial, Senate and House races, according to USA Today. In 2014, there were 558 pro-gun control spots, mostly from Democrats. In 2018, that number had rocketed to 18,416, in comparison to 8,897 anti-gun control spots by mostly Republicans.
In the House races, pro-gun control ads represented about 67 percent of those with explicit messages on guns, compared to just six percent in 2014.
DEMOCRATS TEST-DRIVE NEW MIDTERM SLOGAN AFTER FIRST ONE IS MOCKED 
That has in turn led to some significant about-faces on the issue from long-time lawmakers. The Journal points to Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz. In a 2010 ad, she bragged about her “A” rating from the NRA, but last month she said she would ban “assault weapons” and was given an “F’ by the pro-gun rights group. She said her position changed after the shooting of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.
But while the move may rally the Democratic Party base, it may also give the Republican base a boost -- which has repeatedly shown itself more motivated on Second Amendment issues.
The National Republican Congressional Committee suggested that the move was the latest example of the Democratic Party catering to its left-wing base rather than everyday Americans.
“Republican members and candidates are focused on the issues that are important to their respective districts and Democrats are more concerned about appealing to the most radical elements of their party,” an NRCC spokesperson told Fox News.
Gun control is always risky politically for Democrats, who are wary of the political lesson learned from the 90s.
In September 1994 the Democratic-controlled Congress passed an assault weapons ban, which was subsequently signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Less than two months later the Republicans led by Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., took control of both the House and the Senate in what was dubbed the “Revolution of 94.”
But Democrats say that their shift represents the changing mood of the nation after a spate of devastating shootings in recent years.
“2018 could be the first year in which intensity on our side of the issue exceeds intensity on the other side,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told The Journal.
Democrats are likely to be buoyed by the victory of Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Pa., in a March special election -- who won campaigning for background checks in a district Trump won in 2016.
Additionally a WSJ/NBC poll found that Democratic voters rated gun control the second-most important issues after healthcare. For Republicans, guns were fifth. In midterms, where the party which motivates its base can decide who takes control of the chambers in Congress, tapping into those issues could be key.
But it also represents a broader trend in the party of allowing less diversity on certain litmus issues. Last year DNC Chair Tom Perez said that being pro-choice on the subject of abortion was “non-negotiable.”
"Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state,” he said.

Brennan Cartoons

Joke's on Brennan for failing to find humor in Trump's remark, 'Dilbert' cartoonist says

Imagine a scenario in which a top intelligence officer places the U.S. at risk all because he couldn't discern when the president was joking. It almost sounds like the plot for a comic strip.
Well, that's exactly what happened in the case of former CIA Director John Brennan, according to Scott Adams, creator of the popular “Dilbert” strip.
In a Twitter message Thursday, Adams slammed Brennan, asserting that the former CIA chief in 2016 didn't realize that President Trump was joking when the then-candidate urged Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails.
“So Brennan may have started one of the most important political witch hunts in history based on not recognizing a joke — and I’m not even making that up,” Adams wrote.

“So Brennan may have started one of the most important political witch hunts in history based on not recognizing a joke — and I’m not even making that up.”
- Scott Adams, creator of "Dilbert."

“I feel fairly confident in saying that what I just said is literally true: that the head of the CIA has almost destroyed the United States because he didn’t understand that an obvious joke was a joke.”
The comments came after Brennan lashed out at the White House for stripping him of his top security clearance Wednesday following a review of access granted to several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The former CIA boss authored an explosive op-ed for the New York Times, saying that the president – by making the comment about Russia finding Clinton’s emails in July 2016 – encouraged and authorized his followers to collude with the Kremlin.
“The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016 … when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton,” Brennan wrote.
“By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent,” he added.
The Trump administration justified the decision to revoke the security clearance of Brennan, saying he “has a history that calls his credibility into question,” and accused him of “leveraging” the clearance to make “wild outbursts” and claims about the current administration.
“The president has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday.
But the cartoonist said Brennan deserved to lose the security clearance for not being able to distinguish an obvious joke at the height of a political race, a mistake that eventually led to efforts to investigate the Trump campaign.
“Now, if you’ve got a guy who’s willing to put the entire stability at risk because he can’t tell the difference between a joke and a serious statement, then that guy has got to lose his security clearance at least,” Adams said.
“I wouldn’t want him anywhere near a decision. Would you? After seeing how Brennan responded to a public joke would you want him to make any important decisions about anything?
"I mean, that’s some scary stuff,” Adams wrote.

Red state Democratic senators should listen to constituents and support Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

In the five weeks since President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court, we have seen Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., take obstruction and hyper-partisanship to new heights.
Immediately following the president’s July 9 nomination of Kavanaugh – a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – Schumer vowed that he would oppose the nomination “with everything I’ve got.” If the weeks since are any indication, we should believe him.
Schumer has gone so far as to refuse to meet with Kavanaugh, and to encourage other Senate Democrats to also refuse to meet with the judge.
It is customary for the Senate leadership of both political parties to meet with a president’s nominee. In 2010, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., met with Elena Kagan the very first day she was on Capitol Hill, just two days after her nomination to the Supreme Court was announced by President Obama.
Likewise, Sonia Sotomayor met with nearly every senator of both parties the summer leading up to her confirmation as a justice on the high court.
To his credit, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., broke ranks with his party to sit down with Kavanaugh on July 30, calling the two-hour meeting “very productive.”
Shortly after Manchin announced that he would meet with Kavanaugh, Sens. Joe Donnelly D-Ind., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., also scheduled meetings with the nominee. Those meetings took place Wednesday when the Senate returned from its abbreviated summer recess.
In the face of these defections, even Schumer himself finally agreed to meet with Kavanaugh later this month.
Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp were the only three Senate Democrats who voted for Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court last year. Yet all three senators are carefully toeing the fallback line set by Schumer to remain noncommittal about Kavanaugh, to give Schumer room to maneuver. Manchin has said that he plans to meet with Kavanaugh again after the judge’s Senate confirmation his hearing.
After Donnelly met with Kavanaugh he issued a statement saying that he “will continue a thorough review of Judge Kavanaugh’s record” and will to follow the judge’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing closely.
Donnelly added: “I plan to keep doing my homework and make a decision sometime after Kavanaugh’s committee confirmation hearing.”
Heitkamp was also circumspect, only saying that she will “continue reviewing his record” and “closely study his answers at his Senate hearing” after she met with Kavanaugh.
Schumer’s dogged opposition to Kavanaugh has put the three senators in a tight spot. A recent poll conducted by North Star Opinion Research shows that in Indiana, Hoosiers favor Kavanaugh’s confirmation 52 to 34 percent. In North Dakota, the margin is even greater, with 60 percent of people supporting Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and only 22 percent opposing.
The numbers hold strong for those who self-identify as independents: In Indiana, 48 percent of independents favor confirmation of Kavanaugh, versus 34 percent who oppose. In North Dakota, 60 percent of independents want to see Kavanaugh confirmed versus 18 percent who don’t.
Donnelly and Heitkamp find themselves at a crossroads now that they have met with Kavanaugh. Their constituents strongly favor the judge’s confirmation and recognize that critical issues are at stake with the appointment of the next justice to the Supreme Court.
People in both states care about preserving our nation’s constitutional structure and the framers’ respect for separation of powers. They desire checks on the power of the federal government, such as the protection of their Second Amendment rights. They want to enforce constitutional limits on the federal agencies that oversee an ever-more burdensome regulatory state.
This week (and later next month, when they make the decision to vote for or against Kavanaugh), Donnelly and Heitkamp have the chance to prove that they are not beholden to the obstructionist liberal leadership of their party, but rather are true representatives of the interests of their respective states.
Time will tell as to where their loyalties lie.
Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network.

John Elway says Colin Kaepernick 'had his chance to be' a Bronco but turned it down

John Elway said the Denver Broncos once gave Colin Kaepernick a “chance” to be on the team, but he turned them down.  (AP)

John Elway, the general manager for the Denver Broncos, revealed Thursday that the team once gave embattled former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick a “chance” to be on the team, but he turned them down.
Elway’s comments came while speaking to the press following the end of team camp. The former quarterback was asked whether Kaepernick could be seen as “a viable candidate” to fill a back-up quarterback roll.
“Colin had his chance to be here. We offered him a contract. He didn’t take it,” Elway responded.
NFL PRESEASON SEES KNEELING, RAISED FISTS, DURING NATIONAL ANTHEM
Elway was referring to a trade offer made to Kaepernick prior to the 2016 season while he was still a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, USA Today reported. The deal was reportedly not accepted due a proposed pay reduction.
Kaepernick ultimately chose to stay with the 49ers.
During the season, Kaepernick started his national anthem protests. He began kneeling during the song in order to protest police brutality and the hotly contested move - and other protest variations - were later adopted by other players.
HALL OF FAMER JIM BROWN SAYS HE’D ‘NEVER KNEEL’ DURING ANTHEM, ‘WILL ALWAYS RESPECT THE FLAG’
Since parting ways with the team, Kaepernick filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing owners of colluding against him. Elway provided a deposition for the legal proceedings, according to USA Today, during which he mentioned the earlier trade offer.
“So, you know, and as I said at my deposition, and I don’t know if I’m legally able to say this but,” Elway continued, “he’s had his chance to be here. He passed it.”

12 ex-intel officials slam Trump for 'ill-considered and unprecedented' action against Brennan

Drain the Swamp Mr. President.

Twelve former senior intelligence officials issued a statement late Thursday criticizing President Trump’s “ill-considered and unprecedented” decision to strip former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance.
“The president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech,” the statement reads.
“As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech — even when that right has been used to criticize us — that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable.”
Among the signers are six former CIA directors -- including retired Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was a potential candidate for secretary of state in the early days of the Trump administration.
Also in the group: five former deputy directors of the CIA, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, whose name reportedly appeared on a White House list of ex-officials who may soon join Brennan in losing their security clearances.

"As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech — even when that right has been used to criticize us — that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable."
- The joint statement from 12 former intelligence officials.

The dozen stressed that while they don’t necessarily agree with comments made by Brennan, who’s become a frequent guest on liberal news channels, they believe he has the right to voice them.
The statement came just a day after the White House revoked Brennan’s security clearance following a review of access granted to several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The Trump administration said Brennan “has a history that calls his credibility into question,” and accused him of “leveraging” the clearance to make “wild outbursts” and claims about the administration.
“The president has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.
In a series of tweets, Trump also tweeted comments critical of Brennan, including that he “has gone off the deep end”.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo Cartoons

Make election ballots English-only, Arizona GOP candidate says, igniting debate

A voter casts her ballot in Wisconsin's primary election, Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2018.  (Telegraph Herald via AP)

Election ballots should be printed in English only, a Republican running to be Arizona's next secretary of state said last weekend in a comment that drew pushback from both sides of the aisle.
Candidate Steve Gaynor's remarks came during a GOP candidate forum in Wickenburg last Saturday, the Arizona Republic reported.
"My printing plant in L.A. printed an information pamphlet not too long ago. It had 18 languages on it," Gaynor, the owner of a printing business in Southern California, said, according to the paper. "I would be the first to say it should be -- ballots, information pamphlets, all the material in our country -- should be in English."

"My printing plant in L.A. printed an information pamphlet not too long ago. It had 18 languages on it."
- Steve Gaynor, GOP candidate for Arizona secretary of state

Many in the crowd booed, the report said.
Incumbent Secretary of State Michele Reagan, who is among Gaynor's opponents in the state's GOP primary Aug. 28, accused Gaynor of "pandering" to far right-wing groups, the Republic reported.
Another candidate for secretary of state, state Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said Gaynor's remarks were worrisome, the report said.
Maggie Acosta, lead canvasser for a progressive voter advocacy group, told the Republic that Spanish-language materials were crucial in Arizona because many of the state's voters who speak and read English still prefer to cast a ballot in their first language, to make sure they cast their votes correctly.
“A lot of the people are willing to (vote), yet they are afraid that they’re going to make a mistake on something," Acosta said. "They get discouraged and they’d just rather not vote."
The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that some districts provide election materials in other languages for minority citizen groups who speak different languages, according to the report.

“A lot of the people are willing to (vote), yet they are afraid that they’re going to make a mistake on something. ... They get discouraged and they’d just rather not vote."
- Maggie Acosta, leader canvasser

Based on U.S. Census data demographics, 10 of Arizona's 15 counties must provide voting materials in languages other than English, the Republic reported. About 900,000 Arizona voters are eligible to receive translated ballots under the law, the report said, citing Census data.
Gaynor said the counties should be able to decide if they want to print materials in Spanish. 
He added that learning English would help immigrants "assimilate into American society," the Republic reported.