Tag Archives: BP

a repost

Lt. Governor Brad Owen announced that visitors will no longer be able to openly carry firearms in the gallery of the state Senate.

This action was taken after demonstrators brandished firearms in the House gallery on Thursday. While backpacks and umbrellas have been banned from the galleries for years, the open carry of firearms has been allowed- intimidating members and staff as they work on the floor below.

Now, Lt Governor Brad Owen has called for that threatening behavior to stop.

Click here to send a message to Lt. Governor Owen thanking him for his courageous action to prohibit using firearms to intimidate in the Washington State Senate gallery.

Washington State is one of only three states in the country that allows guns within the capitol building. Preventing people from using firearms to intimidate will create a safer working environment for legislators and citizens in Olympia.

Tell Lt. Governor Owen you are thankful for his action by sending him a thank you note here.

Thank you for your ongoing support of this movement. With your help we will continue to fight for a safer Washington.

Zach Silk
Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility

SAY THANK YOU TO LT. GOV. OWEN

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

The Other Health Care Attack

03/06/2015 Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

Red States Are Really Feeling The Heat On Medicaid Expansion

Despite all the justified attention for King v. Burwell, it is not the only way that conservatives stand in the way of ensuring more people receive quality, affordable health care. A number of states where conservatives have so far refused to close the health care coverage gap are taking a second look.

Like many states that have yet to accept federal funding to provide coverage for low-income working Americans recalcitrant Florida officials are starting to realize that refusing expansion comes with serious costs. If Florida does not significantly change its Medicaid program by the end of June, the state will lose $1 billion in federal funds used to help pay for uninsured hospital patients. The cold, hard math behind expansion is forcing the State Senate to reconsidering its opposition to expanding Medicaid, despite continued stonewalling from the State House and Governor Rick Scott (R).

A mix of hope and worry is present in a number of other states considering expansion:

Alaska: Last month, Governor Bill Walker (I) released a report showing that closing the coverage gap would save Alaska millions. Republicans in the legislature used procedural maneuvers to temporarily bottle up the funds to pay for it and Americans for Prosperity’s Alaska branch, the Koch-funded right-wing group, has campaigned against expansion.
Kansas: Despite continued conservative opposition, the State House has scheduled two hearings on Medicaid expansion. Governor Sam Brownback (R), who campaigned hard against expansion in his re-election campaign, has recently signaled that he could be open to expansion, provided that it is paid for.
Utah: While Governor Gary Herbert (R) and the Republican-controlled State Senate both support a real Medicaid expansion plan, a vote on Medicaid expansion on a State House panel failed, while an alternative plan that would not make a real dent at cutting the number of uninsured Utahns passed through a House panel.

While a number of states are wrestling with what’s really an easy decision, Georgia represents a cautious tale of how ideology hurts real people and costs real money. Under Governor Nathan Deal (R) and a Republican-dominated legislature, Georgia has yet to expand health care to low-income residents. As a result, Georgia’s rural hospitals are in a state of crisis. Instead of proposing a real solution, Governor Deal’s solution is to make rural hospitals more efficient by using telemedicine and relying on school nurses to provide general care. While these solutions are not necessarily bad in and of themselves, they don’t put rural hospitals back on track in Georgia, while expansion in nearby, red-leaning states Arkansas and Kentucky has been great for rural health care networks.

BOTTOM LINE: When states choose to accept federal funding to close the coverage gap, it cuts the uninsured rate and provides stability to people who cannot afford health insurance. In addition, this move helps save states money and make rural health care networks more solvent. States that continue to put ideology over providing care and saving lives will continue to feel the costs.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

love …

02/20/2015 Nativegrl77

“The best love is the kind that awakens the soul; that makes us reach for more, that plants the fire in our hearts and brings peace to our minds. That’s what I hope to give you forever.”

— The Notebook

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Here Come The Nativists

02/20/2015 Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

Bush-Appointed Judge, Hand-Picked By Anti-Immigrant Activists, Rules Against President Obama’s Immigration Actions

Late last night, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security from implementing President Obama’s deferred action immigration directives. The ruling did not come as a surprise to most observers; Hanen has a history of extremist anti-immigrant decisions.

The bad news is that the judge’s deeply flawed ruling will delay implementation of common-sense measures designed to focus limited enforcement resources on felons, not families (bear in mind this does not affect the existing DACA). The good news, however, is that the decision is only a temporary setback; the judicial process will move beyond Judge Hanen to higher courts. And with extensive jurisprudence pointing toward the fact that the President has the legal authority to act, we are confident that his directives will be deemed constitutional and will be fully implemented.

Here are three key points to know and remember in this case:

1. This is a partisan political attack disguised as a lawsuit. In December, governors and attorneys general from 26 states sued the government to block the DHS directives from going in to effect. Every single governor that signed onto the lawsuit, and all but one of the attorneys general, were Republicans.

What’s more, it is no accident that Judge Haren was the judge selected to rule on the lawsuit. The plaintiffs, led by now-Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX), shopped around for a judge they knew to be sympathetic to their anti-immigrant cause.

2. Judge Hanen’s ruling is not the final decision in the case. The Department of Justice will immediately appeal the judge’s decision and apply for a stay of the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. At this point, that can go in two possible directions.

The 5th Circuit grants the requested stay, and implementation of the directives will continue while the court considers the merits of the plaintiffs’ case.
The 5th Circuit denies the stay request and the temporary injunction remains in effect, further delaying the implementation of the DACA expansion and DAPA programs.

In either situation, a decision on the requested stay should take place within a couple of weeks, while the ruling on the underlying legality of the directives will likely take several months. In the meantime, immigrants who would have been eligible to request deferred action under these directives will not be agency enforcement priorities and should not be removed.

3. We are confident that President Obama’s directives are legal, and that they will proceed. Lawsuits against similar executive action have failed in the past, including a 2012 Mississippi challenge of the DACA program, and an effort by an anti-immigrant Sheriff challenging executive action that was struck down in court in December of last year. More than 130 legal scholars from across the political spectrum wrote a letter to the president urging him to take executive action, and laying out the broad legal authority for taking executive action on immigration. These scholars reaffirmed the legality of the DHS directives after they were announced in late-November.

BOTTOM LINE: Last night’s anti-immigrant ruling by an anti-immigrant federal judge in southern Texas is temporary and an aberration. This judge’s ruling is just another piece of a cynical, partisan strategy to break families apart and oppose the President’s policies at all costs. Legal precedent from Supreme Court rulings and similar lawsuits in the past — not to mention the views of more than one hundred legal experts — demonstrates that ultimately, President Obama’s immigration action and the directives from the Department of Homeland Security will be upheld as constitutional.