James Comey Spoils DNC Talking Point

James Comey made his long-awaited appearance in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, calling President Donald Trump a liar and explicitly stating that he believed the President was directing him to drop the investigation into disgraced former cabinet member Michael Flynn. While most of the hearing focused on Comey and Trump’s personal interactions including one-on-one dinners, meetings and phone calls, some questions by Republicans veered towards Hillary Clinton’s emails and the hack of the Democratic National Convention.

One particular question of the Russian hack into the DNC posed by the chairman Senator Richard Burr was the fact that the DNC had not given the FBI access to internal files which would be necessary to conclude that Russia was involved with the hack. Comey confirmed that they weren’t given access, but they had reviewed evidence through a private vendor that had been hired by the DNC to investigate the hack. Burr pushed as to why the FBI felt confident in its determination that Russia had indeed hacked the Democratic election arm without access or “content” from the hacked devices.

“…What was briefed to by (FBI agents) is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016,” Comey replied.

This has been a particularly frequent talking point that both those on the right and left mention when trying to dispel the narrative that the DNC was hacked and Russia being behind it. It will continue to be regurgitated as the investigation into the election continues, but at least there is an on-the-record statement by the then sitting FBI director that despite the department not having direct access they had enough information to reach their conclusion.

Land of the Ignorant, Home of the Skeptics

Another leak in the Russian hacking scandal, this time a hard copy from the National Security Agency perpetually showing that hackers attempted to infiltrate into voting systems before the election. It’s not entirely clear whether the attempts were successful in changing the votes, nonetheless this may be the clearest evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election through hacking and perhaps by changing the votes. So why was it leaked to the Intercept?
This is not to say that the Intercept is not a credible media outlet but it is also home to Glenn Greenwald who happens to be one of the most vocal skeptics of the Russia hacking narrative. Since the intelligence agencies and news media began reporting on the purported interference in the 2016 election, Greenwald has used his growing platform to dissuade his followers from believing any aspect of the assessment. Why the skepticism? Because the government hasn’t released any hard evidence that Russia was involved in any way with hacking the DNC or delivering John Podesta’s emails to Wikileaks, that the need for discretion with the highly classified material was for the birds.
Of course it is important to stress that few items from the media or government should be accepted fully at face value, except Greenwald has instead cultivated an audience that not only question everything reported about Russia but to only accept his view and outright dismiss anybody and everybody that accepts the hacking story. Almost every story published by the Intercept is littered with comments by its readers lambasting either the mainstream media or intelligence agencies for continuing to believe the narrative; some have even gone as far to label believers as xenophobes or calling the coverage anti-Russian.
This latest article about the leak that the Intercept exclusively received has not been immune to these criticisms with accusations that the publication is venturing into mainstream media territory or rejecting that this evidence implicates Russia in any way. Some have gone as far as to imitate President Donald Trump and call it fake news, claiming it is planted information by the CIA or FBI. Most believe that it is to distract from Hillary Clinton losing the election or stealing the nomination from Senator Bernie Sanders, other popular lines from the unpopular President.
Based on this wealth of skepticism and willful ignorance the Intercept was still the recipient of this potentially bombshell revelation which again begs the question, why? The accused leaker, 25-year old government contractor Reality Leigh Winner, has already been arrested and charged with leaking the information to the press, making her efforts almost futile given that a majority of its readers rejected the evidence within moments of the article being posted. For Winner to risk her freedom means she could have been motivated by either a sense of obligation to set the record straight, to try to prove that evidence of Russian hacking and interference does actually exist, or simply as a fleeting spot in the limelight in an era of endless leaks.
Regardless, Greenwald remains skeptical and may or may not have more to say on the matter in the coming days. If and when more evidences comes out implicating Russia in the hacking of the election, Greenwald will surely deny that he belittled the investigation or actively reared a cohort of deniers from ever accepting any proof of interference by the former Soviet Union. He’ll merely hide behind his hackneyed perception as a renowned skeptic of the government and media and call skepticism a healthy and necessary aspect to consuming the news, dismissing the fact that too much skepticism makes for a blind audience of spouting conspiracy theories. The damage has been done, there is no need to take responsibility for their adulteration, so long as they continue to read the Intercept and spread his falsehoods.

Deal with it Catholics: Pro-Choice for Life

It happened again. A man, a theology and religious education professor nonetheless, lent his opinion on the status of abortion in politics, mainly as the title of the op-ed clearly states, “To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party.” As if another male could really contribute to the contentious debate that only affects women, but alas, here’s another male writing about abortion, if only to critique the professor’s lack of knowledge on the subject.

The author is attempting to weed through the reasons why Secretary Hillary Clinton didn’t win enough support from Catholics as former President Barack Obama had in the past, dismissing the idea that the droves of working-class voters made up by said Catholics were more concerned with jobs than abortion. Without citing any poll or survey, he argues that Clinton’s unwavering support for a women’s choice had lost her the election, specifically the Catholic vote.

Obama also supported a women’s right to choose, which the author either fails to mention or bowdlerizes to insinuate a difference between the two Democrats. Yet the reason abortion had become an issue again during the election was not because of Clinton’s unwavering support of Roe v. Wade but of Republicans all out war on access to abortions.

Clearly the professor doesn’t have the expertise on any subject to speak with such authority. Not once does the professor mention legislation restricting and eliminating abortion access that has sprung up in various states over the last decade. Republican lawmakers from various states, with the help from anti-choice groups like Americans United for Life, have devised a slew of requirements they found necessary to subject women to in their private decision. This includes making women wait days or requiring an invasive procedure known as transvaginal ultrasound to hear the heartbeat.

Texas has been at the forefront of enacting such laws that restricted access. The state enacted laws aimed at facilities that provided abortions, resulting in many clinics having to close down due to the mostly impossible standards set by the legislature. These laws were later struck down by the Supreme Court for obstructing a women’s access to abortions.

This is why the Democratic party must remain the in the corner for women, not only for their right to choose but to have unfettered access with few obstacles. If Republicans and Catholics allow Roe v. Wade to remain without repeatedly building roadblocks than the law wouldn’t have to be constantly defended by Clinton and Democrats. Instead many are in fear with the fate of the law in doubt, so it is only natural that the left remain vigilant against any further attempts to dismantle a woman’s right to choose. Women fought for the law, they’ll fight to keep it alive.

It’s not Democrats that need to change, it’s the group of Catholics and other religious sects that refuse to move on and accept that social norms have changed and our laws must reflect society. New York Times understood that by publishing this op-ed that a flurry of objections would arise from many irate women over another mansplainer giving his take on abortion, specifically over at women media outlets like Jezebel or Bustle. Hopefully the professor and his fellow Catholics will listen and learn that not only will women’s choice be a right in this country but that also Democrats will not abandon them.

U.S. Flags Matter (For the Moment)

Since President-elect Donald Trump won the election on Tuesday thousands have gathered to protest in cities across the United States, denouncing and avidly claiming he is not their president. If that wasn’t enough to piss off Trump supporters trying to celebrate their long-shot victory over Secretary Hillary Clinton, burning the U.S. flag has certainly lit a fire on their facebook feed.

To Trumpeters and fellow conservatives, burning of the flag only serves as a further extension of the disrespect others have of their beloved nation and subsequently, although illogical, disrespect of armed forces and veterans. Beginning with the countless protests by Black Lives Matters two years ago to the more recent displays of dissent by football players starting with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, many gung-ho Americans have been up in arms (literally at times) over these acts. Now with their holy Trump taking over the White House, they believe order will be restored and the streets will be cleared of these devout First Amendment protesters.

While flag burning was deemed constitutional and protected under the First Amendment by freedom of speech in the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, some believe that Trump will have the power to overturn this ruling once he installs new justices to the Supreme Court. At the moment, it seems the reality tv star will have an immediate opportunity to fill the bench as the Senate continues to stall with President Barack Obama’s nominee, and it will very likely return to a conservative slanted courthouse.

What remains in question is how will a flag protection act be enacted, as the Senate will need a supermajority to pass any legislation, needing at least 10 additional votes from across the aisle. While some Democrats may be hard-pressed, especially if they are vulnerable to be voted out in mid-term elections, arguably they might form a coalition that vows to not work with Republicans just as the GOP had done for the past 8 years. Maybe the Trump administration can single out certain Democrats that feel flag-burning is unpatriotic, but it will not be easy.

If and once the legislation passes, will it be automatically implemented or will it need to pass various hurdles as again the Supreme Court had already decided bans on flag burning were unconstitutional? And if it does reach the highest court in the land, how will it be decided?

If the Texas v. Johnson case is any indication, it might be not be as easy as some Trump and other Conservatives like to believe. The case was a 5-4 split, with liberal Justice William Brennan writing the opinion that “burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct.” What was perhaps most astounding about the case is two of the Justices that sided with the majority included Republican-leaning judges such as the late Antonin Scalia and current Justice Anthony Kennedy, with Kennedy providing a concurrence stating “…sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right….”

Therefore, so long as Kennedy still believes that flag burning is protected speech and the four liberal Justices side with him, any legislation banning such an act will be deemed unconstitutional. This is not all too clear either, as the original case found some liberals against flag-burning, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor has shown that she is above partisan politics when deciding Supreme Court cases.

In conclusion, burning of the U.S. flag will remain a staple in the protests against Trump and all he stands for, and an eyesore to those that champion the symbol over other issues plaguing the nation, at least for another two years. Until then, protests shouldn’t forget to bring some chestnuts to roast over that open fire while they freeze their buns in front of Trump Tower.

Chris Christie Demoted to the Doghouse

Days after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said that the Bridge-gate scandal should not affect his standing in a President-elect Trump administration, Vice President-elect Mike Pence has taken over Christie’s position as head of the transition team.

A source close to Trump has stated the replacement was necessary to utilize Pence’s connections on the Capitol in order to have smooth transition into the White House. Some believe the decision to change hands was because of Christie’s connection to the 2013 scandal involving lane closings in Fort Lee as revenge against the Mayor for not endorsing his re-election.

Christie alone openly believed his swift termination of the aides responsible for the lane closings in Fort Lee relinquished him of any responsibility to the scandal. He also pleaded innocence after a court decision last month found both aides guilty of fraud and corruption. No one else in the Governor’s administration was charged with a crime.

Christie’s name had been further tarnished during the trial when it was revealed during the 2013 governor election that he used gifts and other privileged items to garner support from Democrats, including 9/11 memorabilia. The prosecution’s star witness, assistant to Christie that was given immunity for his cooperation, detailed Christie’s first time hearing about the traffic jams during a 9/11 ceremony held at the World Trade Center memorial.

This was Christie’s last shot at maintaining a position in the Republican Party after he steps down as governor after the 2017 gubernatorial election. The former Justice Department lawyer had fallen out of the grace of the GOP after the infamous photo of him embracing President Obama during Superstorm Sandy and the 2012 election.

Christie’s name had also been floated around as a contender for a cabinet position as are most Trump surrogates as a reward for their good faith during the election. It’s still unclear whether Christie will still be offered a position or have to return to New Jersey after the newly elected president takes over the White House.

Stop the Meltdown: Clinton Win Still Inevitable

Still amidst a meltdown in the Democratic party after it was revealed the FBI in an unrelated case discovered more emails from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, there have been no new revelations since FBI Director James Comey’s letter was sent to Congress. Yet polls have continued to look slightly better for Republican nominee Donald Trump, especially in swing states he desperately needs to achieve 270 electoral college votes. FiveThirtyEight forecast is a great indicator for the impact of the news on the polls, showing Clinton’s chances drop below 80 after sitting comfortably there for the past couple weeks.

All of this is to the chagrin of Clinton, who seemed all but certain to clinch the election and demolish the GOP. Now it all seems a distant dream, with down ballot candidates worried of the aftermath and losing their chance to take back the Senate. But does this “October Surprise” help Trump enough to win the election? How damaging is it really to Clinton’s last shot at becoming President of the United States?

Clinton is reportedly building a solid support in early voting taking place in some swing states, and the election will be entering its final week so the general feeling is most voters’ minds have been made up. So this gradual swing in the polls towards Trump is not only alarming for Democrats but also somewhat contradictory to what the public has come to expect the last couple weeks.

One reason I’ve come to believe for the uptick towards Trump is the optimism Republicans have conjured since these revelations from Comey. As the FiveThirtyEight crew went over in their past Saturday podcast, Republican voters have become more willing and incensed to participate in polls rather than after Trump’s Access Hollywood tapes were leaked. It has also made Clinton supporters generally less responsive to these same polls, giving the edge now to her Republican rival.

This theory can be easily dismissed as it is based on speculation with a lack of evidence. But much in the same way Clinton received a bump after her series of good debate performances (as well disastrous for Trump) ignited Democrats, now Trump is benefiting from her negative press. It’s especially worse for her when concerning emails, even if a lot of the public isn’t entirely sure what the controversy is but are positive they don’t like it.

If this theory has any truth to it, reinvigorated Republican voter base alone will not be enough to surpass Clinton’s already established lead. While Democrats may have decided to stop answering pollsters, they may become even more incentivized to vote after feeling secure with a Clinton presidency.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the only way the press and voters will stop talking about her emails is for Trump to get in his own way again, which can only happen so many times. Luckily for most of us, we only have to deal with this scandalous drama for only seven more days. Until then, Democrats should not be thwarted by the threat of a Trump victory, it’s an embarrassing episode that only bolsters his supporters more. They have already strongly convinced the public that Trump and the GOP are a circus show, don’t let them believe the other side is a melodramatic soap opera.

Don't Kid Yourselves, Bernie-Or-Bust Activists Aren't Democrats

A nightmare has broken out at the Democratic National Convention. Bernie Sanders delegates have staged a mass walkout after Hillary Clinton had officially clinched the Democratic nomination. While anti-Clinton protests have been staged outside the Wells Fargo arena before the start of the convention, this is the most direct revolt against Clinton and the Democrats as a whole. If Ted Cruz and the Never-Trump crew made the RNC a laughing stock, Bernie-or-Bust are just shy of erupting into a circus. 

This is the DNC’s worst fears come to life, feeding to the media’s narrative that the Democratic Party remains divided and in peril. The protest certainly won’t quell establishment Democrats anxieties that the divisiveness will undoubtedly help Trump secure the presidency. Certainly the Clinton campaign would hope to capture as many votes from Sanders supporters as possible, but maybe some of those participating in the protests were never really Democrats to begin with. 

As Harry Enten, legendary “whiz-kid” at FiveThirtyEight, surmised from polling data, only 41% of Sanders’ supporters have consistently voted Democrat in past elections. Closer to 60% of likely Clinton voters have stuck to party lines, and more had participated in both 2012 and 2014 elections. With this type of quantitative data in hand, the narrative of protesters showcasing party mutiny becomes slightly less credulous. 

Another factor to consider is that Sanders’ popularity is mostly made up by millennials, many participating in their first primary and presidential election. They never had any particular loyalty with the Democratic party, only becoming involved once Sanders’ started mentioning universal healthcare and debt-free college. Therefore the protests at the convention is not necessarily a revolt by card-carrying Democrats but of disenchanted youngsters that have become recently acquainted with the United States election system. 

For comparison, Enten found the complete opposite on the GOP side, as over 60% of Cruz supporters have been adamant Republican voters in the past. Their uprising against Trump were conservative loyalists trying to take back their party from a RINO. Cruz was originally to be the true outsider candidate in the Republican primary, a Texas Senator never afraid to stand up to the establishment and uses the fear of god to ramp support for his ultra-conservative views. He was actually attempting to take his rightful place at the convention that Trump had stolen from him. 

Here lies the clearest distinction between Never-Trump and Never-Hillary activists, the former is actually a part of the party while the latter are majority newcomers or independents. Cruz's fellow Never-Trump supporters are passionate Republicans that are greatly dissatisfied with their party and presumptive leader. This further renders the claim of divisiveness within the Democratic party as tenuous compared to the lack of Republican elites and filled seats found at the RNC.  

It will still be a difficult task for Clinton to actually convert these fickle voters, especially those that have vowed not to vote for either major party candidate. But if we dismiss these "nonpartisan" voters and focus on the traditional Democratic voter, they are arguably a slightly larger voting majority in the electorate in general elections than Republicans. And with the threat of a Trump presidency growing with each passing day, more and more undecided voters are warming up to Clinton. At least for the sake of great caution.

Bigotry in the NRA: Part II

Less than 24 hours after police officers fatally shot a black male in possession of a gun, another black male was shot and killed by police gunfire after telling the officer he had a licensed firearm on him.

The brutal aftermath of Philando Castile's murder was recorded on cell phone by his girlfriend, Lavish Reynolds, and broadcasted live on Facebook, their 4-year-old daughter in the back seat witnessing the whole exchange. The couple were pulled over for a broken tailgate by St. Anthony Police in Minnesota, and when the officer asked for identification from Castile, he told officers he had a concealed carry permit and a gun. This completely legal and helpful information somehow led the police to feel threatened and fire on the victim when he moved his arms slightly while trying to retrieve his wallet.

The fatal encounter with the police has eerie similarities to the very recent death of Alton Sterling, killed by police after someone called 911 over a man brandishing a gun. Besides both being caught through amateur footage, but both men were shot for being in possession in gun while simultaneously not being in violation of any violent laws. Even within these legal boundaries, the National Rifle Association has remained silent on these two exchanges with law enforcement over guns.

So while the NRA has fought endlessly in states for guns to be available to anybody and be carried anywhere, the group is mostly missing from protests or the discussion on social media. They are in the middle of an awkward position of who to be in solidarity with, either black individuals legally armed and killed or law enforcement that are setting a precedent for shooting at people carrying firearms. Not too surprising, many Second Amendment supporters align with the police force, justifying that those in blue can do no wrong and the victims had done something wrong that ultimately caused their deaths.

But really it's because white gun enthusiasts don't feel threatened by the police, and they know the police aren't threatened by them as much as a black person in possession of a gun. White gun owners know police trust them unlike black people, thinking they own their gun for protection while black males are more prone to violence and crime. They are not wrong on many of these points, white privilege expands as far as owning a gun, but many are incorrect in thinking black males arm themselves because of gangs or drugs. They need it to protect themselves and their family from looming threats, now increasingly becoming the police.

Bigotry in the NRA

Supporters of the NRA and gun enthusiasts have come to be known as a great support group to any individual fighting for their right to own and use firearms. People like George Zimmerman are defended for standing their ground, or potential terrorists are shielded by Wayne LaPierre because the second amendment doesn't stipulate who shouldn't have a gun. So why does the group remain mum when Alton Sterling was killed for being in possession of one?

While both protests and controversy over aggressive policing and the killing of blacks has succumbed over recent months, the death of black man by two cops in Louisiana has reignited the outrage not only in the local community but across the nation. Sterling, a man known for selling compact discs outside of the convenience store the incident took place, was brought to the police's attention by a 911 call that accused Sterling of threatening the caller with a gun. According to current information and cell-phone footage of the shooting, the two officers wrestled with Sterling in an attempt to arrest him. During the tussle, Sterling can be heard saying "what did I do?" followed by an officer saying "he has a gun." Moments later, multiple shots were fired and Sterling was pronounced dead.

Based on this information, one can easily infer that Sterling became a person of interest for having a gun, then consequentially shot and killed for the exact same reason. Shouldn't there be greater outrage over this from the NRA? Or is this further evidence that LaPierre believes only certain people should have access to guns? Or maybe that it's easy to judge whether it was a good guy or bad guy with a gun based on his race or being shot by the police?

This is not to say that NRA should be part of this conversation or politicize this incident for their own advantage. It is merely to show the hypocrisy of gun nuts that throw their full weight behind domestic abusers or other violent offenders while people of color possessing firearms are routinely shot and killed. Many know full well that gun owners should not be out in public touting their beloved possessions in support of Sterling and his family.

It's only the hope that if more can see and understand the injustice that countless people of color have to face and endure in their interactions with law enforcement. If nonviolent gun owners can be viewed as less of a threat than before, perhaps that can transcend across racial boundaries as well. It is not ideal to combating police violence, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

Obama's Drone Fails

The Obama administration recently revealed the number of civilian and terrorist deaths from airstrikes it has logged in non-engaged war territories since the President’s first inauguration. It is a step forward for the White House to finally offer some transparency into the government’s use of drones, but whether these numbers were completely accurate remains questionable.

President Obama has been mired by the controversial use of drones from both sides of the aisle throughout his presidency, the left concerned with the large death toll of innocent civilians and how targets are selected. Not surprisingly, conservatives accused him of overstepping his authority by engaging in war without clearance from Congress, even if its continuation/acceleration of President George W. Bush’s drone policy. It went so far as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul holding a filibuster on the Senate floor in 2013, alarmed that the President could potentially kill a United States citizen on domestic soil.

Along with kill lists and the deaths of U.S. citizens on foreign soil, the drone policy has raised a series of new issues in American foreign policy such as the necessity to destroying a target and its ramifications on the surrounding area. Human rights groups have consistently criticized U.S. airstrikes that have resulted in innocent casualties, and dismissed the recent tally offered by the administration of at most 116 civilians killed as too low. Based on information acquired from news articles and local reports, London’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism report at least 500 civilian deaths in the Middle East. Again this does not include current war zones Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

Part of the discrepancy, as the Obama administration sees it, is gathering data from unreliable sources including terrorist propaganda. The other reason may have to do with how casualties are categorized, with many critics believing adult aged males are automatically classified as enemy combatants. The government says this is false, that any casualty without any known affiliation or history was considered a bystander; however officials continue to push that they have enough evidence to justify an enemy combatants execution.

Besides the accuracy of the numbers, the timing of the release of information is also a bit skeptical. On a Friday afternoon before Fourth of July weekend when most of the public are tuned out not only from work but the world in general is a perfect time to admit to killing innocent civilians. It most likely also has to do with the recent book released tackling this very subject by investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, a long critic and muckraker of the drone program.

All in all, Obama has limited the use of drones since 2013 after the immense backlash that emerged, although incomplete data makes it difficult to corroborate that assertion. Nevertheless, the administration is attempting to better inform the public of its use of drones, laying precedent for Clinton to hopefully improve. Unfortunately as the war with Daesh continues, airstrikes will remain in headlines and critics in the editorials

Elizabeth Warren is No Traitor

Let's be honest, Sanders supporters are a bit out there. To be fair, any politician has at least a few proponents that are arrogant in their support and at times show signs of bigotry. The Sanders crowd just managed to grow large and vocal enough to become a source of mockery for the campaign. Their latest target has turned towards Massachusetts Senator and rock-star of the Democratic Party Elizabeth Warren after a campaign appearance with Hillary Clinton in Ohio.

Sanders supporters have called her a sell-out, liar, traitor, most likely far worse than that if you've followed their comments towards Clinton and any journalist that give any hint of disapproval for the Vermont senator. They are an untoward rabid group of arrogant individuals that are rightfully fed up with a dysfunctional political process but naively believe that a politician is absolutely corrupt or absolutely principled, never any middle ground.

When we consider the influence and popularity that Warren has, it's understandable and fair for her not to sway public opinion towards one candidate or another. She was perhaps one of the most sought after endorsements during the primary, whether by fellow Clinton surrogates or petitions by Sanders supporters. She followed the same course as Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama, allowing the primary process to take its course before voicing their support.

Part of Sanders agenda in running was to allow a discourse to emerge about the future path of the Democratic party, which exactly happened but would have been hampered by a Warren endorsement. Her patience offers her a position of power to influence the Clinton campaign that Sanders had helped initiate. If Sanders' supporters are serious about fostering progressive policies in the near future, having a heavyweight in Clinton's corner would only help push that cause.

The true bottom line is that most Democrats, including Warren, are becoming increasingly frightened by the idea of Donald Trump as president. Combined with the latest populist revolt in the U.K. against the European Union, and one can slightly hear the alarm bells ringing in the halls of the DNC. Even Sanders has adjusted his message to make sure Trump does not win the election, his supporters must do the same. Attacking a progressive hero like Warren or Al Franken not only doesn't help but will tarnish future relationships necessary to bringing about progressive policies.

Democrats Finally Take a Stand

Kudos to Congressional Democrats. They have banded together and finally found some sense of decency in combating gun violence. Led by John Lewis, a man all too familiar with using alternative tactics to bring attention to an issue, House Democrats have taken over the floor to protest for a vote on a gun control bill. Persisting into the wee hours of the night, Senators joined the sit-in including Elizabeth Warren with Dunkin' Donuts and Bernie Sanders.

While this is a valiant effort that not only gives great publicity to Democrats but also shows they care enough to do something rather than sit idly by like their Republican colleagues, there's still little hope that anything will change. Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept have been persistently eager to point out that these gun control proposals only focus on a small minority of U.S. citizens and the means to compiling the list tend to be prejudiced against Muslims. These preventive measures may have stop the Orlando shooter, but not the shootings in a movie theater, elementary school or church because none of those white males were considered terrorists before and now.

Maybe a start is better than nothing. Maybe this will inspire a deeper discussion, maybe it will ignite a electorate to elect leaders that will stand up against special interest groups and their well-funded lobbyists and say no more guns. Late show host Stephen Colbert has been consistent on his coverage on the aftermath of the Orlando Massacre, proclaiming that even a fig leaf would show that Congress can do its job. Democrats are showing they can do their jobs, perhaps they need better collaborators, better leaders to complete the task and maybe one day put an end to mass shootings.

Trump's Done, Lets Win the Senate

As the upcoming election dates draws near, who will come out on top is becoming all too clear with the latest update on Republican nominee Donald Trump’s flailing campaign. After an abysmal donation filing last month, Trump is left with a paltry $1.3 million on hand compared to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at $41 million. Paired with a nationwide campaign outreach of 70 employees to Clinton's 700, and Trump's campaign appears to be in terrible disarray.

If anything, this should be a breathe of relief to not only Muslims and Latinos but also intrepid Democrats fearing a Trump presidency. Yet their sights seem to remain on the White House, perhaps not giving enough thought to the Senate, necessary in part to passing any legislation the Clinton administration will come to support. Why not spread Clinton's war-chest to other races that could change the face of the Senate?
 
While Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate by four, they are separated by only several seats from the Democrats for that title. Larry J. Sabato predicts Republicans may lose up to six seats in toss-up elections. According to Politico, there are 15 seats that can be viable openings for Democrats to reclaim the majority and even push them past a supermajority. Some Republican-held seats have become slightly more vulnerable under a Trump ballot, such as John McCain in Latino-heavy Arizona and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. To increase their shot of declaring victory the candidates will need some help (funds) along the way to last until the election.

One of the Democratic Senate candidates include Deborah Ross of North Carolina, taking on incumbent GOP Senator Richard Burr. Seen as a vulnerable seat because of the state's demographics, matched with a growing grassroots effort in response to numerous state laws including voting rights and the recent anti-trans bathroom bill. Still, Ross is not seen as a sure-shot because of her history as the former chair of the state's ACLU and "may need all the help she can get."

Other races seem long-shots such as unseating Ohio Senator Rob Portman or Rand Paul of Kentucky, but any of the races are worth a shot when Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Clinton, has $52 million on hand. The Koch brothers have reportedly chosen to focus their efforts on Senate elections instead of Trump, Democratic strategists must suggest donors and others to do the same. There are enough voters ready and willing to make sure Trump doesn’t become president, Clinton has amassed a highly professional and well-supported campaign. Let’s share the wealth rather than waste it on a shoe-in candidate.