Share:
Nearly 600 miles have been added to the National Trails System: Here's where
(NEXSTAR) – Nine newly-designated trails in seven states will add nearly 600 miles to the National Trails System, which already includes more than 1,300 trails throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland announced the designations in celebration of Great Outdoors Month and National Trails Day on June 4.
National recreation trails are jointly overseen by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service, often alongside federal and nonprofit partners. Unlike national parks, trails can be designated by either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture on existing local or regional trails. National recreation trails are managed locally but “recognized for their contribution to the Nation’s system of public trail access and outdoor enjoyment,” according to NPS.
Among the new trails is Florida’s Seven Mile Loop Trail in the Crystal River Preserve State Park about 85 miles north of Tampa. Primarily on limestone, the trail takes hikers, runners, and bikers over three tidal creeks, which ebb and flow with the ocean tides.
To the north is another new recreation trail, the South Carolina Revolutionary Rivers Trail. Found in the state’s Florence County, the 60-mile trail follows the Lynches Scenic River to “the cypress and tupelo laden stomping grounds of Revolutionary War hero General Francis Marion.” Visitors can paddle into the swampland like Marion and his fellow soldiers could hide from the British.
Further up the East Coast is Virginia’s Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge Trail System. Comprised of seven interconnected trails covering just under three miles, the system is home to seven habitats to explore. Originally established in 1938, the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is located on the southeast corner of Virginia Beach.
Two trails in New York received national recognition – the Inwood Hill Park Orange Trail and the New York State Canalway Water Trail. The first traverses 1.43 miles through Manhattan’s only forest while the latter covers 450 miles of upstate New York waterway flows.
Ohio also has two trails receiving national recognition: the Conotton Creek Bike Trail and the Little Miami State Park. About 73 miles south of Akron, the Conotton Creek Bike Trail stretches over 11 miles along a former rail line. The Little Miami State Park spans 50 miles of a former rail line along the Little Miami River in southwestern Ohio.
To the west is Missouri’s Fulbright Spring Greenway Trail, a nearly seven-mile-long loop commonly referred to as “the emerald necklace.” Found near Springfield, it connects four parks, a school, subdivisions, and other trail systems. Texas’ Bob Woodruff Park and Oak Point Park and Nature Preserve Trails round out the newest trail installations. The almost 10-mile-long trail connects two parks, encompassing 1,100 acres.
Haaland’s announcement of nine new trails is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s “America the Beautiful” initiative, which aims to “conserve, connect, and restore” one-third of the U.S.’s lands and waters by 2030 “for the sake of our economy, our health, and our well-being.”
Agencies, state entities, and local communities can nominate a trail for national recognition. To receive status, trails must meet set criteria. That includes the trail being open to public use for at least 10 consecutive years, complying with applicable land use plans and laws, and supported in a letter from its respective State Trail Administrator.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Who is Chris Stirewalt, the former Fox News editor set to testify before Jan. 6 panel
Chris Stirewalt, a former top editor at Fox News, is set to be one of the witnesses testifying during Monday’s public hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Stirewalt was a member of the team at Fox that made the decision to call Arizona for now-President Joe Biden on election night 2020. The decision infuriated then-President Trump and his top aides, some of whom reportedly complained directly to Fox leadership about the relatively early call.
During an interview on Friday, Stirewalt said the hope is that following the hearings, people are “clear eyed and sturdy footed knowing that we can keep our constitutional system in place.”
“This is the first time in the history of the country that we really threatened the peaceful transfer of power,” he said. “We need to make sure that doesn’t happen in 2024.”
Stirewalt is originally from Wheeling, W.Va., and worked at various local news organizations in the state before joining Fox News in 2010.
He hosted a number of podcasts and authored newsletters while with Fox before eventually moving to its Decision Desk.
Since leaving Fox, Stirewalt has been critical of the news media over its Trump coverage.
“Americans gorge themselves daily on empty informational calories, indulging their sugar fixes of self-affirming half-truths and even outright lies,” he wrote in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times after leaving the conservative media giant. “Can anyone really be surprised that the problem has gotten worse in the last few years?”
Stirewalt did not indicate what exactly he would be testifying about on Monday, but the committee has signaled its second hearing would focus on how Trump and those in his orbit knew there was no validity to his claims of widespread voter fraud.
The Jan. 6 House panel held its first prime-time hearing on Thursday, drawing nearly 20 million viewers as it began to lay out its case that Trump and his allies were at the center of a criminal effort to overturn the 2020 election, an effort that culminated in the insurrection at the Capitol.
“All Americans should keep this fact in mind: On the morning of Jan. 6, President Trump’s intention was to remain president of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power,” said committee vice chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).
Stirewalt is currently a political editor at NewsNation, which is owned by The Hill’s parent company, the Nexstar Media Group.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Matthew McConaughey: The moderate voice of reason America craves
Matthew McConaughey was born and raised in Uvalde, Texas. And, like so many parents of young children (including me) who have lost many hours of sleep over the unspeakable act that occurred there at Robb Elementary School on May 24, McConaughey is fed up with the same tired talking points recycled after every school shooting that leaves children dead and parents and teachers scarred for life.
McConaughey went to the White House this past week to deliver remarks in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room (fittingly, named for President Reagan’s press secretary who was shot by a would-be assassin) to reporters and the country as a whole. And it’s hard to recall anyone in Washington hitting as many right notes with such a unifying tone as did the 52-year-old actor.
McConaughey made his remarks not as a Hollywood activist or supporter of the current president, but as a father of three who happens to have been a gun owner for most of his life.
Unlike most of our leaders on the left, who vilify gun owners and the NRA after every school shooting, McConaughey took a different approach.
“These are reasonable, practical, tactical regulations to our nation, states, communities, schools and homes,” he declared. “Responsible gun owners are fed up with the Second Amendment being abused and hijacked by some deranged individuals. These regulations are not a step back — they’re a step forward for a civil society and, and the Second Amendment.”
“Enough with the counterpunching. Enough of the invalidation of the other side. Let’s come to the common table that represents the American people. Find a middle ground, the place where most of us Americans live anyway. Especially on this issue. Because I promise you, America, you and me, we are not as divided as we are being told we are,” he added.
McConaughey rightly acknowledged that not all the proposals he put forward are 100 percent foolproof or that they would eradicate the crisis. They won’t.
But many of our leaders and those paid to give partisan opinions on cable news are only interested in telling you what’s wrong with a proposal instead of how they’re going to fix it themselves with specifics that exist in the real world. The trick to compromise is finding the areas both sides agree on and going from there. But this is an election year, so don’t expect much to happen on that front.
In a world where the U.S. spends trillions of dollars per year, we should be spending billions on fortifying our schools, one of the many proposals McConaughey listed on Tuesday. If that means hiring two trained officers and limiting the number of entry points at each school to two while staggering the start and finish of the school day by grade, so be it in the name of safety.
We should, as the actor noted, raise the minimum age of owning an AR-15 and similar weapons from 18 to 21, given that the data show almost all school shooters of the past decade were under 21, including the shooter in Uvalde, who purchased two AR-15s on or after his 18th birthday. The only exception to this rule would be if an individual is fully trained in the military under the age of 21. Proper training in that kind of setting? No problem. According to Gallup, more than two-thirds of Americans support raising the age at which people can buy certain firearms to 21.
Increased background checks are another proposal that Americans overwhelmingly support. According to a Public Policy Polling survey, 83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all National Rifle Association members.
Overall, per Gallup, 92 percent of Americans support background checks for gun owners.
“How can the loss of these lives matter?” McConaughey reflected on Tuesday. “We need to recognize that this time it seems something is different.”
“We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before. A window where it seems like real change, real change, can happen,” he added.
We heard the same thing after Sandy Hook. Nothing got done after 28 people were killed in that tragedy, starting with the shooter’s mother and ending with 20 children and six teachers.
Matthew McConaughey is a refreshing voice of reason in a word where, as he put it, the extremes on both sides have the microphone.
“We have got to pull that veil off, quit drinking the Kool-Aid, because we’re hearing it from both sides, extreme right and extreme left, and they have the microphones. The masses have the numbers, we’ve got to take the mic back. Kick them off democracy’s boat, and say, ‘No, you’re not steering this Boat.’”
The masses do have the numbers. Make your voices heard. Enough is enough. We owe our children so much better than this.
To his credit, again, McConaughey understands how suspicious both sides are of each other on the gun issue. So instead of only making his remarks at the White House, he also went to Fox News to speak with “Special Report” anchor Bret Baier, where he took matters to a personal level with the chief anchor.
“Are you a father?” he asked Baier, to which the host responded, “Yeah. I have two boys.”
McConaughey concluded, “Me too. Now, I bet you and I can get something done talking about being dads, giving a damn about our kids and their futures. I bet we can come to an agreement on that.”
Amen.
Joe Concha is a media and politics columnist.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Russia gradually seizing territory in and around Sievierodonetsk: UK
Russian forces are pushing deeper into areas around the city of Sievierodonetsk in Ukraine’s east, British military intelligence said, taking advantage of its larger numbers to overwhelm Ukrainian defenders and gradually seize territory.
The latest update from the United Kingdom’s defense ministry also said Russia is deploying more units and troops to Ukraine amid heavy fighting in the Donbas, the industrial heartland of the country that has been the focus of the Russian war effort for more than a month.
According to the intelligence update, Russia is sending in third battalions from its combat brigades, which are usually held in reserve. The third battalion is likely to help replenish troops for the longer term in Ukraine.
Sievierodonetsk in the Luhansk region has become the epicenter of the war, which has dragged on for more than 100 days. Russian forces hope to seize the city and gain a key foothold over the eastern Donbas, with the inevitable goal of establishing a land bridge over to the Crimean Peninsula.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday said the fate of eastern Ukraine was being decided in the battle for Sievierodonetsk.
“This is a very fierce battle, very difficult. Probably one of the most difficult throughout this war,” Zelensky said in an address.
Ukraine has managed to inflict heavy losses on Russian forces with the backing of the western security alliance NATO. Ukrainian fighters pushed Russia out of the capitol region of Kyiv and last week launched an effective counterattack, taking back territory in the southern part of the country around the Kherson province.
Still, fighting around Sievierodonetsk continues amid steep losses and casualties for both sides. Russia last week began using more troops for ground operations from the independent and Russian-backed separatist force Luhansk People’s Republic to blunt the impact on its army.
Leonid Pasechnik, who heads the Luhansk People’s Republic, told The Associated Press the city is contested but they had managed to hole up most Ukrainian troops in the industrial part of the city, including inside a chemical plant.
Pasechnik said Ukrainian fighters should “make a decision” to surrender because Russia would eventually emerge victorious in the city.
“We will achieve our goal in any case. We will liberate the industrial area in any case. We will liberate Sievierodonetsk in any case,” he told the AP.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Biden political gamble on Saudi trip unlikely to drive down gas prices
President Biden is using key political capital on a risky gamble – that meeting with condemned Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will convince the Kingdom to stabilize global oil markets and ease prices for Americans at the gas pump.
But experts say it’s not guaranteed that the trip will produce lower gasoline prices and the political cost may be far greater for the president.
“I don’t believe there’s an amount of oil the Saudis could provide that would substantially reduce U.S. gas prices. It will be difficult for Biden to come away with something he can call a win,” Samantha Gross, fellow and director of the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution, told The Hill.
Biden’s allies, and even critics, are stressing the necessity of the president addressing areas of cooperation with Riyadh for U.S. national and global security despite revulsion at Mohamad and the Kingdom’s violations of human rights.
Further, Saudi Arabia’s position as the world’s second largest oil producer and unofficial head of the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), make it a key gatekeeper in helping to lower peak energy prices.
The average price of a gallon of gas reached nearly $5 on Friday.
The White House is planning for Biden to travel to the Middle East in July.
Announcement of the trip comes as the OPEC+, a group of major oil exporting nations that includes both Saudi Arabia and Russia, recently sped up its plans to increase oil supply as part of its efforts to offset pandemic-related supply cuts, from 432,000 barrels per day previously to 648,000 barrels per day for July and August.
“Saudi Arabia wants to manage the oil market via OPEC+ rather than through unilateral moves,” Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an email.
But, Cahill said, it’s not clear what the countries will do in the coming months.
“And the reality is that spare capacity is quite limited, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE and the rest of OPEC+ have to manage it carefully. Their output may rise, but we shouldn’t expect a big burst of production from Saudi Arabia this fall,” he said.
“It’s not going to be because Biden has made the trip there,” he said, noting that they would be most motivated by high oil prices in order to prevent demand reduction.
Robert Weiner, professor of International Business and International Affairs with the George Washington University, said it’s impossible for any one country to fill the void left by sanctions on Russian oil, put in place over Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
“There is no way that Saudi Arabia has the ability to produce as much oil as the world has lost because of the Russian embargo, and no country has that ability.”
Claudio Galimberti, senior vice president of analysis at Rystad Energy said that at most, the Saudis could ramp up production to levels that would bring down oil prices by $10 to $15 per barrel. But he added that this is unlikely.
Instead, the Saudis are likely to stick to the OPEC+ timetable and only increase output after that if Russian production drops significantly.
And while crude oil prices, which were around $120 per barrel Friday, are a major predictor of gasoline prices, other factors, including reduced refining capacity, are also currently raising prices.
Galimberti said that could be resolved by August, as new refineries open in the Middle East.
While it’s not clear whether the trip to the Kingdom will deliver lower gas prices, it also comes with political risks.
Saudi Arabia faced scrutiny over its human rights record including the devastation of the war in Yemen, arbitrary detention of political dissidents and the 2018 killing of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the direction of Mohammed.
Biden’s Democratic allies in Congress have given their blessing for the trip, while urging the president to be direct and express concern about human rights violations in the Kingdom.
“I think it’s important for the president of the United States to have opportunities for conversations with the Saudis, they’re a strategic player in the region,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Hill.
“I hope that he will be very direct about our concerns, including the human rights violations, and our need for greater cooperation from Saudi, in regards to oil production. So there’s reasons why dialogue needs to take place. I hope they have frank discussions.”
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), an outspoken critic of the administration’s foreign policy, also gave his blessing for Biden’s trip.
“He has a responsibility to try to bring that region together as a strong counterweight to Iran. He has a reason to try to ensure that there is energy stability in the world. I think he has a reason to try to extend greater relationships for the state of Israel. But in doing that, he should also be raising human rights…” Menendez told The Hill.
Biden is expected to meet with the Crown Prince in July, part of his first visit as president to the Middle East and that will likely kick off in Israel.
The trip is considered essential for the president to demonstrate the administration’s commitment to the Middle East and Gulf.
Republicans have criticized Democrats, alleging that they have lost focus on the region’s importance.
“The Biden administration has gone out of their way to alienate the Saudis and to drive away our allies in pursuit of their effort to embrace Iran and the theocratic and incredibly hostile regime there,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), told the Hill.
The administration has also failed to return with Iran to the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that former President Trump withdrew the U.S. from in 2018.
While the talks to revive the JCPOA are on “pause,” Biden’s envoy for Iran, Rob Malley, told lawmakers last month that chances for success are “tenuous at best”.
Malley added that without the constraints of the deal, Iran has accumulated enough enriched uranium and know-how to produce a nuclear bomb within a matter of weeks, “before we can know it, let alone stop it.”
Strengthening an anti-Iran coalition in the Middle East – among Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and others – is a top priority for the president and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
On Thursday, Democrats and Republicans introduced legislation directing the Pentagon to pursue an integrated missile defense system in the Middle East with Israel, Gulf nations and Iraq.
The bill was introduced in the spirit of the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements reached by Trump between Israel, the U.A.E. and Bahrain.
Biden has come under criticism from Republicans and some supporters for failing to harness the potential of Israeli-Arab rapprochement, which the White House hopes to accomplish with its trip.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
The law treats dangerous dogs more carefully than assault-style rifles
There is a legal doctrine of due care that could provide a key to enhancing gun control in America. For many years, it has been applied to the transfer of dangerous dogs and explosives, but it is not generally applied to the sale of assault-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines. There’s an opening for gun control here — one that can be pursued in court, rather than Congress: How can a dangerous dog, after all, be more of a threat to public safety than an assault-style rifle?
Applying this doctrine is not the slam dunk that logic would suggest. I know that from my own experience in seeking to apply it, but it holds enormous potential that should be pursued further, precisely because the logic is indisputable, regardless of politics. In the aftermath of so many mass shootings, how could any judge — or politician, for that matter — dispute that logic?
This approach has the added advantage that it does not violate the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, a federal law that limits liability suits against arms manufacturers and dealers. The act expressly does not bar lawsuits based on “negligent entrustment,” which it defines as a claim that the seller reasonably should have known that the sale likely would create an unreasonable risk of physical injury. Notably, actual knowledge is not required; nor is a certainty of injury. Facts indicating an unreasonable risk are enough.
After the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., I led a lawsuit by New York City’s Trinity Church Wall Street against Walmart asking for a shareholder vote on whether the Walmart board should be required to exercise heightened oversight over the sale of assault-style rifles and other especially dangerous products. The federal District Court ruled in our favor; the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that decision. But, while our request for Supreme Court review was pending, Walmart decided to stop selling assault-style rifles.
Trinity Church also participated as a friend of the court in a lawsuit brought by the parents of Sandy Hook victims. The plaintiffs’ suit focused on the marketing of the Bushmaster AR-15 in a way that allegedly invited purchase for violent use. We focused on an additional premise: that the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment required due care when selling an especially dangerous firearm such as the Bushmaster. A brief filed by a group of law professors supported this position.
The Connecticut Supreme Court discussed the negligent entrustment theory at great length. It agreed that the doctrine applied to assault-style rifles and that the standard of required conduct was due care. However, in this case the purchaser was the shooter’s mother, and there is no evidence that the shooter ever threatened injury to himself or others. Consistent with the common law process, the court did not decide whether on different facts an allegation that the mother was aware of such threats would have made a difference. The court allowed the suit to proceed on the improper marketing claim and a $73 million settlement was the ultimate result.
Opponents of increased care in the sale of assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines might argue that Congress, rather than judges, should address this matter, but they should remember that vast bodies of law are “common law,” which is entirely made by judges and developed over time in light of reason and experience. Tort law, the law of redress for injury, is almost entirely judge-made, and this doctrine is one of tort law. Unlike federal judges, whose chief role is to enforce federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution, state judges are common law judges who are continuously making law through the development of the common law.
Common law indicates that it would constitute lack of due care under the “should have known” standard of negligent entrustment to fail to confirm that a purchaser of explosives was trained in their safe storage and handling. Similar inquiries of the purchaser of an assault-style rifle or high-capacity magazine should be required under the negligent entrustment standard of due care: How will these items be safely stored? Have any persons who will have ready access to these items threatened injury to themselves or others? Why does the purchaser have confidence these items will be used only for lawful purposes?
The negligent entrustment approach has further advantages. First, while claims based on marketing practices can be effective against manufacturers, who are generally responsible for marketing, negligent entrustment claims are effective against gun retailers who are the last line of defense against purchasers who may be bent on gun violence. Moreover, a manufacturer could be liable for negligent entrustment by selling to distributors or retailers that it should have known had no protocol for preventing sales that are likely to create an unreasonable risk of injury.
Second, courts are the traditional guardians of the common law. Thus, legislative inaction would not be fatal to pursuing this reasonable gun control measure.
Third, this approach would increase the involvement of insurance companies in oversight of gun retailers’ risk management practices. Insurance companies play a constructive role when their insuring decisions and pricing reflect the insured’s program of risk reduction.
Finally, applying negligent entrustment to the sale of assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines would not violate the Second Amendment. Reasonable measures to prevent the sale of these products to those whose possession would create an unreasonable risk of injury are clearly within the zone of regulation allowed by the Second Amendment.
It’s time to require that assault-style rifles be treated with the same due care as dangerous dogs. Who would argue otherwise?
Evan A. Davis, an attorney, is a former counsel to New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and was president of the New York City Bar Association (2000-2002).
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
How gun talks are weighing on Cornyn’s candidacy for Senate GOP leader
Negotiations on a gun-violence package are boosting the national profile of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the leading candidates to someday replace Mitch McConnell (Ky.) as Senate Republican leader.
Senate Republican aides and strategists say the high-stakes negotiations give Cornyn an opportunity to score a major accomplishment, which could bolster his chances in a future leadership election.
Helping to pass a gun-violence bill that takes the issue off the table ahead of the midterm election will likely burnish his reputation as someone who’s able to do a tough job for the good of fellow Senate Republicans.
Senate Republicans worry that if they don’t pass gun-violence legislation, Democrats will denounce them as obstructionist and try to use the issue to move suburban women and other swing voters in the November election.
One senator familiar with McConnell’s thinking said the Republican leader believes it’s important to show voters that Republicans can govern by negotiating a gun-violence package with Democrats that responds to the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. But McConnell doesn’t want to go so far as to anger Second Amendment voters.
“It’s a sign that McConnell actually wants something we can vote on and pass,” the senator said of McConnell’s decision to appoint Cornyn as the lead GOP negotiator.
McConnell says he wants a bill to pass.
“Step one is to try to get a deal, as I’ve said repeatedly I hope that will be sooner rather than later,” he said.
And he praised Cornyn as someone who “knows more about this subject than anybody we have in the Senate.”
Other Republicans, such as Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) or Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), may be more likely to be found in the midst of bipartisan negotiations, but aides said Senate Republicans generally have less faith they can negotiate a package that can get 10 GOP votes and overcome a Senate filibuster.
One Senate Republican aide said that if Cornyn can strike a deal on gun-violence legislation, “it provides a heat shield for other members.”
“We don’t know how this will end, I think Cornyn has credibility on the issue with Republicans and Democrats. Most people understand he won’t cut a bad deal and perhaps will get a better deal than a more freewheeling discussion with Toomey or Colins,” the aide said.
“I think this is probably a good example of how he would run the Senate [as GOP leader.] There’s a risk because it’s a hot-button issue but our members appreciate that someone is willing to step up and steer this in the right direction because they know this is a hard thing to do,” the source added.
Senators and Senate aides say if Cornyn can deliver on the gun violence issue, it will show he shares McConnell’s ability to put together a big deal under challenging political circumstances when his party needs it.
Several of McConnell’s biggest moments as Senate GOP leader came when he had to take the thorny issue of raising the federal debt limit off the table by working with Democrats.
That happened most recently in December when McConnell negotiated a one-time exemption to the filibuster in order to raise the debt ceiling.
Former President Trump blasted the debt-limit deal and only 14 Republican senators voted for it — including McConnell — but it kept the government from defaulting and spared Republican senators a bigger political headache.
McConnell had to take another tough vote for his GOP colleagues in February of 2014, when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who was ramping up for a presidential run, forced Republicans to vote with Democrats to overcome a filibuster of another debt-limit measure.
Aides and strategists warn that Cornyn must proceed cautiously. If he cuts a weak deal with Democrats, it will draw the criticism from conservatives and gun-rights groups, which won’t help his aspiration to one day become the next Senate GOP leader.
“Gun control is a hot-button issue with conservatives,” said Brian Darling, a GOP strategist and former Senate aide, who pointed to the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment to expand background checks in 2013 as evidence for how unpopular the issue is with conservatives.
“Republican politicians understand that supporting gun control is very bad for their future,” he added. “It’s really a terrible political idea to push these ideas and team up with Democrats to pass gun control.”
The amendment Toomey negotiated with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for gun sales after the mass-shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was seen as a common-sense, modest proposal in 2013. It was even crafted with input from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).
But the amendment wound up getting only four Republican votes and failing on the Senate floor.
Toomey later saw his A-rating get downgraded to a C by the NRA.
The warning to other Republicans was clear: Negotiate with Democrats on gun control and face the wrath of gun-rights advocates.
Nine years later, every member of McConnell’s leadership team, including McConnell himself, has at least an A rating from the NRA.
If Cornyn hammers out a deal with Democrats, senators will be watching closely which members of McConnell’s leadership team votes for it.
Cornyn and Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) are seen as the two leading candidates to succeed McConnell as the top Senate Republican leader, though McConnell has said he plans to serve at least another term as leader in 2023 and 2024.
Cornyn and Thune both have A-plus NRA ratings.
Cornyn served as Senate Republican whip, the No. 2 role in the Senate GOP leadership, from 2013 to 2019, when he stepped down because of term limits.
Since leaving the elected Senate leadership, Cornyn has continued to attend McConnell’s Monday leadership meetings as an adviser but he doesn’t have the same platform that he used to have.
For example, Cornyn no longer attends the weekly leadership press conferences on Tuesdays and when senators and members of the media have questions about the schedule or where the votes are lining up on a big issue, they often go first to Thune, the whip.
Thune also holds regular whip meetings in his office, giving him a team of allies who could be helpful in a future leadership race. If Thune wins re-election as is expected, he will hold the whip’s job through the end of 2024, when he will also face a term limit.
Cornyn is aiming for a deal with Democrats that would strengthen the national instant criminal background checks system and keep firearms out of the hands of people with criminal histories and mental illness, but not expand background checks to make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to buy guns.
Senate Republicans familiar with the talks say he wants to craft a deal that can get the support of close to half the Senate Republican conference. But it’s also possible that a bipartisan gun-violence package struggles to get just 10 GOP votes.
McConnell, when asked about the likelihood of a gun-violence bill getting more than handful of Republican votes, said it’s too early to speculate on the outcome.
Senate Republican sources say Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) will certainly vote no.
Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is viewed as a possible “yes” vote because he is retiring at the end of the year.
And Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who says she is open to raising the minimum age for buying an AR-15-style rifle to 21, is considered another possible “yes.”
But National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Rick Scott (R-Fla.) is viewed as a likely no because he is potential future presidential candidate.
And Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who also harbor presidential ambitions, are expected to vote no.
Several senators have already raised tough questions about the direction of the negotiations, including Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Kennedy (R-La.), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Marshall warned Thursday that adding red flag legislation to the package would be a “poison pill.”
But many more Republican senators have held back from criticizing the emerging package, showing deference to Cornyn who asked his colleagues to keep their “powder dry” while the talks are underway, according to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Live results: Alaska primary
The Associated Press is following the election in Alaska.
Follow the live results below.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
31 members of white nationalist group arrested near Idaho Pride event
Dozens affiliated with a white nationalist group were arrested on Saturday in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, near a Pride event in the city.
In a press conference Saturday evening, police shared that they had received a tip concerning a large group wearing matching outfits and masks.
“At approximately 1:38 this afternoon we received a telephone call from a concerned citizen who reported that approximately 20 people jumped into a UHAUL wearing masks. They had shields and ‘looked like a little army,’” said Coeur d’Alene Chief Of Police Lee White.
The 31 individuals were detained hours after the tip was shared and were found to be affiliated with white nationalist group Patriot Front.
White said that members of the group, many of whom were dressed in Patriot Front paraphernalia, hailed from at least 11 different states.
The members were arrested for conspiracy to riot after the police uncovered plans to cause disturbances at the Pride parade and throughout the city.
White expressed appreciation for the tip from an observant citizen and said that he is satisfied with placing the large group in jail as police sift through further evidence.
“In my opinion, I would gladly arrest 31 individuals who were coming to riot in our city for a misdemeanor rather than have them participate in some sort of seriously disruptive event, which is exactly what they were planning in the downtown area,” White said.
Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris expressed a similar sentiment, saying that the group needed to be placed in jail for the time being.
A press conference attendee asked Norris: “You talked about overcrowding jails last week — is there enough room for 31 people in your jail?”
“We’ll find the room for these 31,” Norris responded.
Source: TEST FEED1