Memorial Day, May 31; D-Day, June 6; and the Fourth of July – the memories of a nation and people’s commitment and sacrifice swell up in a five-week span commemorating the best the American nation has to offer.
As a part of what is sometimes referred to as the “greatest generation” my late father was a veteran of World War II. A mortar unit staff sergeant, he landed at Utah Beach on that “Longest Day”- June 6, 1944. Later he went on to fight with General George S. Patton’s Third Army during the Battle of the Bulge. As recounted in the 1979 movie “Patton” starring George C. Scott in a remarkable performance as the main character, during that battle that repelled the German counterattack following the invasion of the European mainland, Patton’s Third Army moved more men and equipment farther in the least amount of time than any army in history. And Patton and his Third Army’s movement and counterattack during which my father was wounded assured the Allies would not be driven back into the sea from which they had come on June 6, 1944.
My father carried a piece of shrapnel next to his spine for the rest of his life from a wound received during that decisive battle for Europe. And he carried his memories of the war against European fascism almost as close to the vest as that piece of shrapnel by his spine. He also carried a deep respect for Patton, his final battlefield commanding officer, that he said was not uncommon among the men Patton commanded.
Today I find myself missing the character and commitment of that “greatest generation” and its leadership as the nation now grapples with the evolution of its own homegrown corporate neo-fascism. It was a threat of domestic origin predicted in 1944 by Vice President Henry Wallace as the battle against European fascism ground inexorably forward.
“The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis (Germany-Italy-Japan), the FBI has its finger on those,” Wallace told The New York Times in an interview published April 9, 1944.
“The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
“They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.”
The flow of history
Sixteen years later the distinctly American evolution of that domestic threat first cited in 1944 by a sitting vice president was termed “the military-industrial complex” by President Dwight D. Eisenhower during his Jan. 16, 1961 farewell address to the nation.
Fifty years ago during the height of a nuclear-armed “Cold War” with the Soviet Union, Eisenhower, who had commanded all Allied troops on the European front during World War II, called what he had initially termed “the military-industrial-congressional complex” the greatest threat to the security of this nation – not the Soviet Union, not nukes, not illegal immigrants but our own homegrown form of corporate and money-driven fascism.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government,” Eisenhower observed. “We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
What were first, Democrat Wallace and then Republican Eisenhower warning us against?
Inherit the whirlwind
Look around you – it’s here, driven most prominently by corporate-owned news stations (poisoned channels of public information) and a bought-and-paid-for Congressional majority dedicated to stamping out every basic social and economic security for all but those at the top of the economic food chain.
The American neo-fascists we have been warned about since 1944 and 1961 are an economic elite reflective of those who throughout history have sought to control wealth and power in order to shape the fate of nations and peoples to their personal and shortsighted benefit – they are not prone to compromise because wealth and the “might” it purchases “makes right”.
It is not an elite identified by royal blood or Divine Right, but simply by the acquisition of great wealth. So logically, it is an elite that would have you measure individual and spiritual value by the acquisition of wealth. And despite assertions to the contrary, it is not a Christian elite. In fact, if Jesus said “it is harder to pass a camel through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” I’d say it’s more a satanic cult than anything else.
Eisenhower, who removed “Congressional” from his description of the threat from within so as not to appear to be making a partisan attack on a Democratic Congress, lauded his and that Congress’s efforts to work together for the good of the nation.
“The Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together,” Eisenhower observed.
It is a political sentiment far from the new partisan mantra of no compromise, but rather partisan ideological victory over all. Such partisan “victory” will eventually come at the expense of every average American – but never at the expense of the politician’s billionaire corporate sponsors.
As he prepared to become a private citizen after eight years in the White House, Eisenhower looked toward the future, telling the American public, “Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest [nations] must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.”
What has changed in the last half century since career soldier and Republican President Dwight David Eisenhower preached not just a national, but international equity in shaping all our futures?
Perhaps the only change is the arrogance with which corporate super wealth, buoyed by its hired political lackeys and mercenary guns (military-industrial-congressional complex), wages its economic world conquest against enemies both domestic and abroad.
I fear that if this generation of Americans doesn’t rise to the challenge and just say a resounding NO to the lies, to the legalized graft and corruption, to the bigotry, and self-serving political hypocrisy, all the heroism and sacrifice of that past “greatest generation” of which my father was a part will have been for naught.
If the generation that fought and defeated the rise of European fascism in the 1940s is remembered as this nation’s greatest, will those that sat idly by as our own corporate fascists casually walked over us and the world in banker’s pin-striped suits be remembered as our worst?
(An earlier draft of this personal memoir was published in June 2011 in The Warren County Report.)
Congress: Ethics & Standards of Conduct
To my Grandson, to help clarify a few points.
The concepts here are relatively simple, but they are frequently ignored. Even when not ignored, the lines differentiating between what is “right” or “wrong” or “legal” or “illegal” will often be blurred.
If you are employed by someone, you are obligated to use both time and resources to the benefit of the employer.
Time: The time for which you are “employed” belongs to the employer.
Resources: The property, building, equipment, supplies, money, utilities (electricity, water, heating, cooling) and sometimes vehicles (cars, trucks, aircraft) belong to the employer.
When you use the employer’s time or resources for personal use, you are stealing.
All members of the Federal government, whether elected or appointed, are employees (President, Congress, Senate, judges, and military and civilian staff members of all Federal agencies or departments).
They are employed by the “People of the United States.”
They receive salary and benefits from the “People of the United States.”
They are obligated to use both time and resources to the benefit of the employer, the “People of the United States.”
If they use time and resources for personal gain or personal endeavors, they are violating the law.
There are literally hundreds of laws, directives, and published policies that specify detailed examples of legal or illegal activities.
(Note: These same obligations/laws apply to all levels of government whether individual states, counties, cities, townships, or school districts.)
Examples of Misconduct:
A U.S. President is charged with personal misconduct while in his office. He uses his staff (legal advisors, secretaries, administrative assistants) to prepare documents, statements, press releases, and press conferences on his behalf.
A U.S. Senator flies aboard a military aircraft to Europe to attend a conference. He tasks his staff to get tickets for himself and his wife to attend a Formula One auto race in Italy the weekend after the conference.
A Federal judge uses his staff to do research, uses his office computer word processing software, and uses his office hours, all to write a novel he plans to publish.
An Air Force commander uses a fighter jet and flies to Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nevada, so that he can attend his daughter’s wedding.
A U.S. Senator pushes legislation for a fighter jet the military has not requested and does not want. The aircraft in question is produced in the Senator’s state.
A lobbyist pays (or gives gift, i.e. vacation travel) a Congressman in return for the Congressman’s vote or sponsoring a bill favoring the lobbyist’s business!
Other Examples of Misconduct:
As State Governor: (from: CBS Chicago.com)
Blagojevich was trying to get (himself) appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to President Obama’s Senate seat.
Blagojevich was trying to get Obama’s help setting up a non-profit funded with millions of dollars, which Blagojevich could run after leaving office.
Blagojevich was trying to shake down racetrack owner John Johnston for $100,000 in campaign cash in exchange for Blagojevich quickly signing legislation to benefit the racetracks.
Blagojevich was trying to get $1.5 million in campaign cash from supporters of Jesse Jackson Jr. in exchange for appointing Jackson to the Senate.
Blagojevich was trying to shake down Children’s Memorial Hospital CEO Patrick Magoon for a $25,000 campaign fundraiser in exchange for approving a state funding for doctors at the hospital.
Another State Governor uses a police helicopter to have himself flown to his child’s soccer game.
A bus-boy in a restaurant conceals himself for five-minutes (not official break time) and uses his own cell phone to call a friend.
An I.T.T. employee uses a company-provided rental car while on business in Colorado; he drives the car to Des Moines, Iowa, to visit his cousin Zeke.
An office worker uses the office computer and printer to print a term paper for a college course.
Consequences of a Failed Coup
If President Trump pulls off a win in 2020, there is going to be a great deal of soul searching, not to mention wailing and gnashing of teeth. Many will ask how, how could someone so disliked win another term? I am not saying he is going to win. I have no idea. But, if he does, I am suggesting that history can give us a clue as to the event that helped him win.
I recently wrote an article looking at the ideological ancestry of Progressives and one of the men I mentioned was Huey Long. As important as Long was in the 1930s, he is a character largely forgotten to time. Even with the 1946 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel All the King’s Men and the subsequent two movies of the same name (1949 and 2006) being loosely based on Long, he is lost to history. Yet for some time, Long was the loudest voice of protest against President Roosevelt, and one of the most influential men in America. His “Share Our Wealth” program hoped to do more to eliminate poverty than anything the New Deal considered. Yet, before Long could become the champion of the people, first he had to endure government attacks and impeachment attempts.
Long grew up poor in rural Louisiana but had well-educated parents for that time and place. He was described as having a photographic memory and excelled in school, but not so much getting along with others, including teachers. After being expelled, he later took some classes from Oklahoma Baptist University, as well as the University of Oklahoma. He did not finish either, but he did end up attending Tulane Law School for one year before passing the bar.
Long worked as a lawyer for a few years, as he worked his way up through Louisiana state politics, until he ran for governor in 1928. He was able to beat a powerful political machine by consolidating the rural poor vote with the minorities and Catholic votes. He ran a Bernie-Sanders-small-donation type of campaign that he called “Every man a king, but no one wears a crown.” He promised public works projects, free textbooks, and higher taxes on the wealthy. Once in office, he lived up to his promises; he was the New Deal before there was such a thing.
As Governor, Long ran Louisiana like a dictator. He pushed all his opponents out of offices and replaced them with loyalists. He took on big business, especially Standard Oil, and was able to impose his will over the legislature. Because he had a demagogue-like hold over the people of his state, he also used shady finances and physical force to build his power.
When Long tried to raise the tax rate on oil companies, they fought back. Supported by the oil companies, the conservatives tried to impeach him for everything from blasphemy and corruption to attempted murder. One opposition leader supposedly said that you can impeach for anything. Impeachment is political. These may be the truest words ever said. Long felt as if he was not being fairly treated in the press, who were connected and backed by big government. He did not have Twitter, but in the 1920s, he did the next best thing. To get his own message across to the public, he started his own paper and mounted speakers to a car to deliver his thoughts. Most importantly, he utilized a new technology, 1920s social media, the radio. A medium his future opponent, FDR, would also use to perfection.
In the end, the people rallied to Long’s side and he pulled in enough senators to pledge not to vote for any charges. Long walked away stronger than before; he became the “Kingfish” and ruled his state with an iron fist. He said something along the lines that he used to ask please of the government, but now he used dynamite. Having survived impeachment, he gained complete control over Louisiana, and then turned his sights to the national stage.
As a democratic senator, Long championed the democratic candidate, FDR, in the 1932 election. Long took credit for FDR’s wins in several states and felt he earned an unofficial advisor position to the new president. Roosevelt saw things differently, saying, “He really is one of the two most dangerous men in the country.” When Long began to speak for the administration and proposed his plan to limit income, FDR distanced himself from the Kingfish. There is too much to write about here, but the two men quickly came to odds, leading Long to use his significant public influence to attack the New Deal. The administration counterattack was in the form of the Treasury Department launching an investigation into Long’s tax returns (some things never go out of style), as well as a special senate investigation into election fraud in Louisiana. Finally, with a possible weakening of the Kingfish, his Louisiana enemies saw the chance to take back the state and attempted to oust the Long-controlled state government.
When Long was finally brought to a hearing, the evidence against him was flimsy and unimportant. It looked as if prosecutors were working out personal grudges. It did not take long for the hearings to fall apart and the people to lose interest. In the end, those who had attacked Long suffered greater than Long ever did. Once again Long emerged stronger than before. If was after the government attacks that Long proposed the “Share Our Wealth” program to redistribute wealth. He also began to prepare to take on FDR in the next election. Before he could challenge the President, however, he was shot down by an assassin. I am not saying that he could have defeated FDR, but his power and popularity had grown even more since being attacked by the Government and he was emerging victorious.
I don’t know what the final outcome of the Mueller report will be and I am not here to weigh in on Trump’s impeachment chances. But historically speaking, if after two years of investigating Trump and nothing comes from it and if Democrats continue to investigate, it starts to look like an abuse of power from the Democrats. As with Long, the constant attacks only strengthen his base and even draw in others. If after the 2020 election, Trump is still in power and the left is scrambling again to figure out why, their answer may likely be the very investigation they started.
Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at www.Historicallyspeaking.blog or Facebook at @jamesWfinck.
Imagine you are the owner of ABC Widget Company and that you have just discovered some of your employees have regularly been leaving company premises during paid work hours. These employees have been collecting pay for work not performed. And while they were away, your widget production fell.
Wouldn’t you, as a business owner, feel you have been wronged? Wouldn’t you feel you have a legal right to recover your losses?
I’d side with the business owner on this one. Call me old-fashioned, but I was raised in a generation that believed a dollar’s worth of work ought to be rendered for a dollar’s worth of pay. I’d feel that the business owner ought to legally recover not only the lost wages, but he also should recover his losses for widgets not produced.
Now, would you be surprised if I told you that nearly every member of the U.S. Congress is doing precisely what those imaginary wayward employees of ABC Widget Company were doing? Am I saying that your congressman is collecting a $174,000 salary and is leaving company premises during paid work hours? Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. And more. Our elected congressional representatives are pocketing the salary that you and I pay them and are busily “out of their offices” engaged as telemarketers. They are dialing your phone number and mine raising funds for their next election!
There are “call centers” complete with “scripts” to aid individual congressmen in “dialing for dollars.” Both parties have told newly elected members of Congress that they “should spend 30-hours a week” in these call centers which are conveniently located just down the street from their offices.
Why just down the street? Because by law members of Congress cannot make such fund-raising calls from their offices. So our elected representatives circumvent the law, go outside of their offices and spend 4 or more hours a day making fund-raising calls. They are literally told to do so by political party leadership. Why? Because the Political Action Committees (PACs and Super-PACs) have helped fund their elections. Congressmen are told their first priority each day is to raise $18,000 to replenish the Super-PAC’s funds for the next election.
If you would like to verify this, you can do what I did. Go online to the CBS website and navigate to Season 48, Episode 32 of the 60-Minutes show. You can hear reporter Norah O’Donnell interviewing Florida Rep. (R), David Jolly, Wisconsin Rep. (R) Reid Ribble, New York Rep. (D) Steve Israel, and Minnesota Rep. (D Rick Nolan. You’ll hear these congressmen spell out the details. They are sponsoring a bill (H.R. 4443) attempting to stop the practice of federal elected employees from “dialing for dollars.”
Former Rep. Israel admits he has spent more than 4,000 hours soliciting donations. Israel adds that congressmen spend more time raising money than on constituent needs or being on the floor of Congress. Rep. Nolan tells us the “last few years of Congress have been the most unproductive ever.”
Now let’s return to our imaginary ABC Widget Company. If you or I were among those employees collecting pay for work not performed, would we not likely be prosecuted under the law? Might we not be convicted for embezzlement? Why, then, do we sit idly by and allow our elected congressmen to break the law?
What is a Progressive?
It is currently looking like in June that at least twenty-five Democrats are seeking their party’s nomination for the presidency. With so many candidates, there seems to be a growing wedge in the party over the term “progressive.” In a “60 Minutes” interview, Nancy Pelosi said her party needed to come back towards the center, whereas many of the newer members are moving too far left.
Pelosi claimed the socialist wing of the party is small, but the interviewer countered that the progressive wing is actually getting larger. Pelosi’s response was that she is a progressive. As the party of Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, being a progressive is a badge of honor for the Democrats, and if some is good, more must be better. With so much talk about progressives, it is worth taking a look at the Progressive movement and consider who they were and what they stood for. When we understand the original movement, it becomes clear that progressivism is often misunderstood and misused.
In America’s first century, life could be hard on the poor, kind of an understatement, I know, but during this time it was not considered the government’s job to care. Government was much too busy in the Gilded Age passing tariffs and fighting about who started the Civil War to care about the poor. The initial real push for change did not come from the progressives, but actually the Populist movement. This radical fringe movement first suggested government should actually help those in need. It was this movement that first introduced many of the reforms that Progressives would later claim, like income tax, direct election of Senators, women’s suffrage, and prohibition.
What hurt the Populists were some of their more radical ideas, such as government takeover of railroads and adding silver to the gold standard to increase the money supply. Ultimately, the Populists were too radical too quickly for the American public, however, they set the stage for things to come. It was the Progressives who, after the initial shock, asked for many of the same reforms but did so in a much more conservative, orderly, and controlled fashion. They allowed Americans to ease into the drastic changes, while also not going as far as government takeover.
Today the historical faces of the Progressive moment are Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. With two Republicans and one Democrat, we see that Progressivism did not follow party lines but actually brought them closer together. The Progressive presidents became famous for “trust busting,” or going after monopolies. Wilson’s approach was to break up companies in order to restore competition between larger and smaller businesses, while TR wanted to expand the regulatory power of the Federal Government to control rather than destroy business. None of the Progressives wanted to end capitalism or business. All three men ran in the 1912 election (TR for the Bull Moose Party) and all three opposed the socialist candidate, Eugene Debs, and his platform.
Some historians, most notably Joan Hoff Wilson, believe there was a fourth progressive president, Herbert Hoover. Even though a Republican, Hoover worked for Wilson during the Great War and inspired his beliefs in cooperation in the economy and volunteerism between labor and business. Hoover differed from fellow 1920s Republican presidents who believed “less government in business and more business in government.” Hoover, like his fellow progressives, did not want business in government. They wanted regulations but also did not want government completely controlling business.
If Hoover was a Progressive, as Wilson suggests, that means that FDR was not. Hoover had serious reservations about the New Deal and did not consider FDR a progressive. The problems Hoover had with the New Deal were that, first, it did not actually fix the Depression. Second, Hoover did not believe mixing capitalism with some of FDR’s more socialist ideas worked. Giving handouts, or what Hoover called “the dole,” hurt traditional freedoms and independence of Americans. Lastly, he feared the individual was becoming a pawn of the state and the government becoming too powerful.
Based on this example, it is Pelosi’s moderate wing of the Democratic Party that seems more in line with the Progressives. The Ocasio-Cortez wing fits more into the Populist ideology or even more like Deb’s socialists.
For historians who disagree with Dr. Wilson and who see FDR as a true Progressive, once again the Ocasio-Cortez wing does not match up with FDR’s progressivism. What I have always found the most interesting thing about the loudest critical voices of the New Deal were that they did not come from the right, but actually from further left. In FDR, America had a president who did more for welfare than any president ever had, but there were complaints that he should do more.
The two loudest voices were Louisiana Governor-turned-Senator Huey Long and Catholic priest-turned-radio star Father Coughlin. Long wanted a tax code that destroyed concentration of wealth by capping income. Father Coughlin wanted a complete overhaul of our monetary system, including adding silver to our monetary system, and nationalism of railroads. Both seem more influenced by the Populists, even to the point of free silver, than they do to the Progressives. Both men believed the answer to all ills was more government control, way more that FDR did.
What we see is that Pelosi’s call to return to the center is more in line with historical progressivism and Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist’s wing is fighting against it. If anything, the far left in the Democratic Party is more in line with the Populists. The problem is we have changed meanings of words; we call Trump a populist when he has nothing in common with the Populist Party and Ocasio-Cortez a progressive even though she does not have ties with the historic Progressive movement. Words also matter in that labeling yourself a progressive is beneficial, so that anyone who opposes you becomes a non-progressive. Also, calling yourself a socialist will hurt electability. Pelosi understands that.
Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at www.Historicallyspeaking.blog or Facebook at @jamesWfinck.
OPINION: Time to pull up our bootstraps as American tax paying citizens and stand up
Most of the one side of my family has lived in and around Warren County for a very long time. In discussions I have had with family and others in the area, the perception of leadership since the 1980s has seemed to steadily decline in the areas of government leaders, law enforcement, and even dealing with drugs and other illegal activities. Even though the County and the town of Front Royal has seen times of infrastructure improvement and new businesses welcomed into the area, there is perceived to be through media and “talk around town” a steady decline in morals, ethics, and just common decency and transparency from the standpoint of governmental leadership, enforcement of law and order, and related business dealings for which the citizens deserve and should demand as residents, voters, and taxpayers.
This spring brought the ultimate clarity of a decline when the top of local law enforcement, the sheriff, took his own life with the presumption of illegal activity looming for this long serving public servant. This should be a loud wake up call to everyone that the corruptness you thought existed and suspected in at least some areas most likely exists and has tentacles into other areas of town and county politics and government as well as some businesses, but the courts and investigators will have to determine hopefully the true depths as well as guilt and innocence of this activity, and all the individuals involved.
If the residents of Front Royal and the County of Warren expect to see a return of peaceful and orderly living for them and their families and desire a Respect and Trust in the elected officials and employees of the Town and County, than folks in the local organizations, churches, households, and businesses are going to need to pull up their bootstraps as American tax paying citizens and stand up.
One clear way to pull up those boot straps would be to clean house. Not to proclaim guilt or misdoing on any person in particular myself as that is for the courts and evidence to prove out the truth, but to clear the air and give the community a renewed confidence in their leadership, may I suggest that citizens need a whole new supervisory board and council, new leadership in the town and county law enforcement, and these selections need to be backed by your state representatives and state law enforcement to remove all of the suspected and/or perceived corruptness that has been a cloud over the area for a long time.
Further, don’t think you are cleaning house if you end up electing people to office that are even remotely related to anyone or any event in question that has occurred in the County or Town over the last 20-25 years, or you are fooling yourself that things will get better; much less re-elect previous people that have stepped down, etc… Because the corruptness will just carry on for the next generation of your family to have to deal with. Lastly, electing any person who moves into the community and just wants a hobby into a public leadership role should be looked at carefully. The public should always want the opportunity to have the final say.
As a man who has fond memories of spending time in Warren County as a boy, I hope and pray that the next quarter century is better for this community, but the citizens have to want that by making your voices loud and clear that enough is enough, and by showing up at the ballot box to make your voice have substance, and showing up in numbers at council and board meetings. I hope that each person will take this time in local history very seriously for your community and your family’s sake.
Martinsburg, West Virginia
Laura Galante: Statement On Mass Shootings In El Paso and Dayton
In the span of a mere 13 hours this weekend, 29 Americans, including 4 children, were murdered at a Wal-Mart in El Paso and at an entertainment district in Dayton, Ohio. The El Paso shooting is the 8th deadliest in American history, and the Dayton shooting is the 250th mass shooting this year. Two other shootings earlier this week, one at a neighborhood Wal-Mart and another at a garlic festival, mean 34 Americans died in mass shootings this week alone.
We mourn and pray for the families who lost loved ones in El Paso, Dayton, Gilroy and Southaven, but we owe these families more than words. Law–abiding gun owners in rural Virginia know what responsible gun ownership looks like. It’s time our politicians took their responsibility to preserve both public safety and the Second Amendment seriously. We must act now to deal with this scourge at both the state and federal level.
In Virginia’s General Assembly that means enacting common sense measures like:
• Enacting Extreme Risk Protection Orders—so that when someone sees something and says something, law enforcement and a judge have the tools to act if someone is a danger to themselves or others.
• Expanding Background Checks—87% of gun owners support background checks. We must eliminate the background check loopholes, especially for online sales.
• Increasing mental health resources for schools and communities. Virginia has a serious shortage of mental health professionals and services. We need to address the shortage with improved access, especially in underserved areas of the Commonwealth.
This year, when presented with opportunities to address these same measures, Michael Webert failed us. He refused to consider Extreme Risk Protection Orders, which allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from people who endanger themselves or others. He voted against requiring criminal background checks on Internet sales. Webert voted to allow gun purchasers who could not pass a background check within 3 days to buy guns anyway. That’s not leadership; that’s abdicating your responsibility as an elected official.
Enacting these measures won’t stop all shootings but they will help. They will help more Americans come home alive from shopping malls, restaurants, festivals, schools and churches. “We have a culture of firearm safety and responsible ownership in the 18th District,” said Laura Galante. “It’s time our politicians became as responsible as the law-abiding Virginia citizens they seek to represent.”