Carnage in America

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

THE MASSACRE that killed nineteen students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas last May 24, has sent shockwaves across America.  The killer was an 18-year old kid, Salvador Ramos—a high school dropout—who barricaded himself inside a fourth-grade classroom before fatally shooting 21 people.   According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the shooter walked into the elementary school ‘unobstructed’ through a door that was apparently unlocked and nobody confronted him.   
    It all began when the shooter posted on social media that he shot his grandmother in the face.  Then posted saying he’ll shoot up an elementary school without naming the school. Within 15 minutes he drove to Robb Elementary School where the shooting occurred.
Bloody timeline
The gunman took his grandmother's truck and crashed it just outside of Robb Elementary School.  At around 11:30 a.m., he took an AR-15-style rifle and a backpack with him and went to enter the school. Another rifle was later discovered in his truck.  The shooter was wearing a plate carrier but not ballistic armor.   
    At the school, the shooter first encountered school resource officers but made it inside the school through a back door.  He walked down the hallways before entering a classroom.  The gunman then began firing at the students.   It’s not clear how many students and teachers were killed at that point.
    At 11:35 a.m., two school police officers and five Uvalde officers rushed inside the school.  Bullets grazed two of the officers.  The door was closed at that point.
    At 11:37 a.m., 16 more shots were fired. A few seconds later, police heard another shot.  More shots were fired at 11:38 a.m., 11:40 a.m. and 11:44 a.m.
    At 12:03 p.m., a terrified teacher called 911. She was inside room 112, she whispered.
    By that time, there were as many as 19 officers inside the building.  At 12:10 p.m., the teacher called back. The gunman had killed several of her students.
    She called again, three minutes later, and again at 12:16 p.m.
    Eight or nine of her students were still alive, she said.Minutes later, at 12:19 p.m., a child in the adjacent classroom called 911. The call was brief: she ended it when another student told her to hang up.
    At least two more calls came in over the following 22 minutes. The last one, from a student, lasted several minutes as the child stayed on the line, trying to quietly whisper updates to the dispatcher.
    By then, frantic parents had gathered outside the school, urging police to act. Instead, video showed officers preventing parents from trying to get to the school, and in some cases, handcuffing parents.
    Inside the school, officers searched for a janitor so they could get a master key to open the locked door, and waited for more highly trained, heavily armed SWAT operators from Border Patrol’s elite BORTAC squad.  Why didn’t the police force their way inside the classroom?  Nineteen armed police officers didn’t have the courage to do so?  They ought to be fired!
    At 12:21 p.m., the gunman fired three shots; the sounds were audible in one of the 911 calls dispatchers received.  It was at that moment when members of Border Patrol’s BORTAC unit arrived, with ballistic shields.  But still, officers took no action.
    At 12:43 p.m., the girl who had remained on the line told dispatchers that the gunman shot the door.  Students could hear the police next door, she said.  She pleaded with police to come help.
    At 12:47 p.m., after more than an hour huddled in terror among the bodies of her murdered classmates, the girl made the same plea again.
    “Please,” she said, “send the police now!”
    Police finally unlocked the door at 12:50 p.m. and killed the gunman. They began pulling students out moments later. But 19 students lay slaughtered, along with two teachers.  Seventeen others were seriously injured; and in the days after, the husband of one of the murdered teachers would suffer a heart attack and die, leaving their four children orphans.
Spate of killings
The massacre was the deadliest shooting at a U.S. grade school since the massacre that killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, a decade ago.  Ten days prior to the Texas shooting, a gunman killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.
    The spate of killings has raised concerns that too many assault rifles are in circulation across the nation, which led someone to say, “If Children Aren’t Safe at School Where Are They Safe?”  All too often, school children are being killed across America and nothing is being done.  Congress refused to act, all because they don’t want to touch the Second Amendment.
    Texas authorities on Wednesday said they were still seeking answers about a possible motive and what sparked the attack from a man who had no criminal adult record and no known mental health history. 
    It was revealed that the gunman recently purchased two semi-automatic rifles on separate dates, on May 17, the day after he turned 18 and on May 20. He also purchased 375 rounds of 5.56 ammunition, and seven 30-round magazines.  Four days later he murdered 21 people. 
Abbott’s press conference
At a press conference, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott insisted that since Texas became a state it’s been legal for 18-year-olds to buy long guns. 
    But long guns of today are often semi-automatic, which did not exist 200 years ago.  What we have now are “killing machines,” not hunting rifles like they used then.
    Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was murdered in the Parkland school shooting, blasted Abbott, saying, “The governor seems completely unable to understand that he can easily make a distinction when you’re talking about whether an 18-year-old should buy an assault rifle or not. And all he cares about is a century of history in Texas on long guns. We didn’t have AR-15 style assault weapons back then.  He can easily make a distinction and say, ‘you can go hunting, here are the rifles you can do, you can buy, you can possess – and here’s an assault-style rifle.'”
    “If he (Abbott) thinks that people are stupid and unable to understand that there is a clear distinction between a killing machine and a hunting rifle, that he’s taking us all for fools.”

    Yesterday, Vice President Kamala Harris called on Congress to pass assault rifle legislation.  But with the grip the National Rifle Association had on Republicans, it is doubtful if it would ever come to pass.  
Assault rifles were once banned in 1994 when then-president Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.  But Congress let it expire after the 10-year sunset was reached. Congress let the bill expire because many Democrats that supported the ban didn't have the majority they needed for a vote.
    At the end of the day, it is hoped that the Uvalde massacre would awaken America. It’s time for Congress to take the bull by the horn and pass legislation banning the use of assault rifles.  It’s time to stop the carnage in America. (PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Roe v. Wade under siege!

Perry Diaz

IT ALL BEGAN WHEN a Supreme Court draft opinion leaked out that Roe v. Wade will be stricken down.  Justice Samuel Alito’s "sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion" striking down Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion remains the Supreme Court's "only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case."  And there are no dissenting draft opinions circulating among the justices, which means that national abortion rights appears imminent.
    With six conservatives on the high court right now, it’s conceivable that Chief Justice John Roberts—usually a swing voter—would cast a dissenting vote that would end in a slim majority 5-4 vote.  However, he could introduce an amendment that would water down the ruling and lessen the impact of the decision.  He might even be able to convince another justice to go along with his amendment; thus, ending up with something that is palatable to the liberal justices. That’s just the way politics at the Supreme Court work.  But still it’s politics at play.
Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision passed in 1973 in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. The decision struck down many U.S. federal and state abortion laws.
Alito’s draft opinion
In Alito’s 98-page argument, he wrote that Roe v. Wade should be overruled because the Constitution “makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional amendment, including the one on which defenders of Roe … now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    Alito then went on to differentiate between abortion and other rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, writing that the procedure is “fundamentally different … because it destroys ... what the law now before us describes as an ‘un-born human being.’”
    Clearly, the mention of abortion would immediately spark controversy, regardless of which side you’re with.   Majority of American women are very protective of their reproductive rights while a small minority driven by their religious beliefs are against abortion and they are as well pretty vocal about it.
Abortion rights bill fails
In an attempt to pre-empt Alito’s anticipated opinion, Senate Democratic leaders introduced a bill—Women’s Health Protection Act—that would enshrine abortion rights in federal law.  The bill failed in a 49-51 vote with all 50 Republican senators, along with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin opposing.  But even if all the Democrats had voted for the bill, it would still fail to pass because it didn’t have enough support to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.  If passed, the bill would have protected abortion access across the country and ensured the procedure remains legal in every state without additional restrictions.
    Manchin, an abortion opponent who represents a conservative state, said he voted against the bill because it went further than just codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law.  He said the proposal “expands abortion.”  He said he had been “pro-life all my life” but did believe in some exceptions to abortion bans.  “And with that, that's not where we are today," he said. "We should not be dividing this country further. We're already divided."  He just divided it by voting against the bill.
    Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who said they support abortion rights and have offered a more narrowly tailored piece of legislation to codify Roe, also voted against Wednesday's bill.
The vote demonstrated the Senate’s inability to pass important legislation like the Build Back Better bill, which failed on a 49-51 vote that didn’t require a 60-vote filibuster threshold.  Again, it was Manchin who dealt a blow.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, 13 states with so-called trigger laws, poised to go into effect if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, the time of restricted access to birth control is unfolding in states that narrowly define when life begins.  Some states are even considering legislation that would limit the kinds of birth control residents can acquire.
    Some conservative lawmakers wasted no time signaling they were looking into restricting or banning certain types of emergency contraception, such as Plan B and certain types of intrauterine devices—IUDs—could be restricted, or other morning-after pills that can be used within 72 hours of intercourse to prevent pregnancy.
In Louisiana, legislation was introduced that would classify abortion as a homicide and define “personhood” as beginning from the moment of fertilization.  Anything that would prevent a fertilized egg from turning into a pregnancy and being born into a baby could be considered a homicide.   And abortion providers would be prosecuted as criminals.
    With all the maneuverings in the Senate, the Women’s Health Protection bill doesn’t have a chance of seeing the light of day.  It has unnecessarily become too controversial that Republican women senators junked the bill.  So what’s next?
    At this point in time, it doesn’t seem that Congress would ever pass anything that resembles the Women’s Health Protection bill, which means that the Supreme Court’s draft opinion to strike down Roe v. Wade will soon be deliberated by the justices.  And unless Chief Justice John Roberts can come up with a anti-abortion ruling that can get the support of one more justice, which would give them a slim 5-4 majority decision. Otherwise, if the Supreme Court fails to fashion a palatable anti-abortion decision – like something that would legitimize abortion of pregnancies caused by rape or incest.
    At the end of the day, unless the Senate gets its act together, Roe v. Wade will soon cease to be the law of the land.   Yes, Roe v. Wade is under siege in America!
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Quo vadis, Donald Trump?

Perry Diaz

BEATEN AND DISGRACED in November 2016 by Democrat Joe Biden, former president Donald Trump wants a comeback in 2024.  He’s been holding rallies in various cities around the country, bringing together a cultic following among Republicans. 
    Initially, he managed to demonstrate his hold on Republicans who see him as the leader that would lead them to victory in the forthcoming midterms in November.   But not all Republicans are beholden to him.  
    There is a growing number of Republicans who want to see another Republican lead the GOP to recover the White House in 2024.  And there are at least a dozen presidential wannabes who’ll be running in Republican primaries challenging Trump. 
    While it is most likely at this time that Trump is still the man to beat in the primaries, there is likelihood that one of them would emerge the leader in the pack, which begs the question: Who would that be?
Electability
The answer depends on several factors, foremost of which is: Electability. 
    There are a few at this time who would be considered “electable” someone who could face up to Trump in state primaries.   Two come to mind: Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.  Kinzinger mocked the celebrated MAGA firebrand Representative Madison Cawthorn’s defeat over his defeat by “RINOs”—Republicans In Name Only—in last Tuesday’s primary election in North Carolina.   Cawthorn, a first-time congressman, is a pro-Trump who vowed to defeat the “RINOs” who had set out to defeat him.  Humbled by his defeat, Cawthorn immediately conceded defeat a few hours after the polls closed. 
    However, Kinzinger has been targeted by right-wing Republicans for his criticism of Trump.  He announced his retirement after voting to impeach Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol.  But he made clear that he’s not running away from the political arena.  “This isn't the end of my political future, but the beginning," he said in his retirement announcement video.
    Kinzinger launched a PAC earlier this year, dubbed "Country First," to challenge the GOP's embrace of Trump's election lies and root out what Kinzinger has described as a "cancer" inside the party.
    Kinzinger is reportedly “actively weighing whether to seek his political fortunes in the Senate, the Illinois governor's mansion or even the White House, despite serious questions about whether there's any future at all for a Donald Trump critic like him in today's GOP.”  But Cawthorn’s defeat promises to elevate Kinzinger’s viable political future.
Declaration of war
Meanwhile, Liz Cheney raised eyebrows when she announced she’s going to New Hampshire in November.  There is only one reason why someone would go to New Hampshire – to test the political water for a possible run for the presidency.
    As early as last April Cheney had left the door open to a presidential bid in 2024. "I'm not ruling anything in or out — ever is a long time,” she said.  Shortly after being removed from her third ranking post in House leadership for her criticism of Donald Trump, Cheney reportedly said she “would do ‘whatever it takes’ to ensure that Trump was not the Republican standard-bearer in 2024.”  Does it seem like it’s a declaration of war?  You bet.
    Trump was angry that Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him for his role in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.  He has called Cheney a “warmonger” and a “disloyal Republican.”   He has endorsed a primary challenger to Cheney and is promising to defeat her.  
    Cheney has not backed down in the face of Trump's assault.  Instead, she has rallied the GOP establishment.   
    Reportedly, “former President George W. Bush is set to hold a fundraiser to benefit Cheney in October in Dallas and she has also received campaign contributions from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as former House Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan. Cheney has already raised more than $3.4 million this year and had nearly $2.9 million left in the bank, according to her last campaign finance report.”  Not bad for a warmonger and disloyal Republican, which just shows the deep division among GOP stalwarts, particularly those who don’t want a Trump resurgence leading to 2024. 
    If Cheney wins her primary next year, she would emerge in GOP circles as the one who slayed the Trump dragon.  She will prove that standing up to Trump doesn’t have to be a death sentence for a Republican elected official.
Trump’s Waterloo
As a matter of fact, Georgia might prove to be where Trump would meet his Waterloo on March 24.  Early on, Trump has endorsed former Senator David Purdue against incumbent Governor Brian Kemp, who is leading by 32-point margin against Purdue.  Incidentally, former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed Kemp, a smart move to line himself up against Trump’s candidate.  Another prominent Republican who is supporting Kemp is former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who will join Kemp in his campaign before the primary.
    Purdue’s defeat would be the latest sign that a Trump endorsement would not guarantee a candidate’s victory.  A case in point was Representative Madison Cawthorn’s primary defeat. The young firebrand lost to state Senator Chuck Edwards after an aggressive attack campaign by Democrats and Republicans alike.  After his defeat, Cawthorn called for “Dark MAGA” forces to take revenge on establishment Republicans.
    Cawthorn reportedly posted a list of people who supported him when the "establishment turned their guns on me."  The list included Trump, who pleaded for voters to give Cawthorn a "second chance" despite "some foolish mistakes," as well as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as well as others that Cawthorn said "came to my defense when it was not politically profitable."
    Cawthorn’s supporters should now be wary because the voters could deal them the same fate that he was dealt with.  And as Trump ponders what effect it would have on his own fate, the die would soon be cast against him in 2024.    
    While it is too early to predict Trump’s 2024 comeback, there seems to be a silent undercurrent going on in the Republican Party that could deal him a fatal blow in 2024.   The signs are growing.   After Georgia, what’s next?
But for sure, there will be serious challenges to a Trump presidential nomination.   Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would be at the forefront and they would give Trump a run for his money.
    At the end of the day, Trump’s endorsed candidates might win in the primaries, but how would they fare in the midterms and general elections?  Will the American people vote for them if they would think twice before electing Trump as president again?
    Quo vadis, Donald Trump? (PerryDiaz@gmail.com)