Diane Feinstein

The Senior Citizen Generation In California Politics, And A Future Potential Leader

California, the state which represents the future in American politics to many, has become a state which has government leaders who are senior citizens, who have been part of the political system for decades.

A strongly Democratic state in the past twenty years, California’s top office holders are all in their 70s.

Governor Jerry Brown is 74, and was governor when he was in his mid 30s in 1975.

Senator Diane Feinstein is 79 years old, has been in the Senate for 20 years, and was Mayor of San Francisco in the late 1970s.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 72, and has been in the House of Representatives since 1986.

Senator Barbara Boxer is 71, and has been in the Senate for 20 years, and was previously a House member since 1982.

When one wonders who the leaders of the future are in California politics, the person who sticks out the most is Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, who is 45, and seen as a likely nominee for Governor in the near future, after his earlier service as Mayor of San Francisco.

Those Against “Reasonable” Gun Control Laws Are Promoting Anarchy And Lawlessness, Undermining Police And Law Enforcement Agencies!

With the horrific events in Aurora, Colorado, on Friday, the Movie Multiplex Massacre conducted by James Holmes, we are seeing conservatives, Republicans, and the National Rifle Association ready to fight to prevent even “reasonable” gun control laws.

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, elected with the help of the Tea Party in 2010 over the great progressive Russ Feingold, came out swinging against any gun control legislation, using the same crazy viewpoint of Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert that if others in the audience had possessed guns, they could have stopped the gunman, fully misunderstanding that several people using guns would have likely led to far greater casualties, as no one would know who was the perpetrator, and who was trying to stop him!

Johnson, on Fox News Channel, saying this ridiculous comment, was contradicted by Senator Diane Feinstein of California, who knows the horrors of guns, witnessing the assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978.

As Feinstein asserted, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason for ANYONE other than the military and police forces to have access to assault rifles, and magazines of large numbers of ammunition. Handguns and hunting rifles for specific purposes, after a total background check are reasonable, but not AK 47s or other types of rapidly firing machine guns that can kill large numbers of people, as this massacre was conducted two days ago.

This is a struggle that needs to be fought against the unreasonableness of the National Rifle Association, and those Republicans, and even Democrats, who seem to have the belief that we are fighting the Indians on the frontier, or are fighting the Crusades in the Middle East in the medieval period.

A civilized society MUST put controls on guns that are unnecessary, and that only crazy people would wish to possess, as what is the purpose of having assault weapons, except to kill large numbers of people? It is not like a handgun to protect oneself, or a hunting rifle to go hunting for deer, or whatever!

Sanity must be demonstrated, and requires courage by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney and those who understand that if nothing is done, the massacre in Colorado will be repeated with much higher numbers of casualties, far surpassing the all time record of 70 victims which occurred two days ago!

Also ask law enforcement agencies, and one will find that the police see themselves as the front line of possible victims, as even with their own defenses, the widespread ownership of assault weapons endangers their lives, even more than the average civilian!

A Clarification On Obama, The Libyan Civil War Intervention, And The War Powers Act

A few days ago, the author wrote in criticism of a group of Republican conservatives who were making an issue of the fact that 60 days has passed since the Libyan intervention, and that a resolution was needed to continue the intervention, under the War Powers Act of 1973.

The author incorrectly stated that no such resolution was required, but made the point that the Congress could, but never had, demanded the withdrawal of troops within a 60-90 day period, and never, realistically, would.

Upon further investigation, it turns out that it is not just a group of extremely conservative Republicans who are making an issue of this matter, but instead a bipartisan group that is pushing for a resolution next week in the Senate to continue support of the intervention.

And it turns out that yesterday, President Obama called for such a resolution to continue support, which is assured, despite criticism of some Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the political spectrum.

The group pushing a resolution includes Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Diane Feinstein of California.

It turns out that Bill Clinton failed to get a resolution within 60 days when he intervened in Kosovo in 1999, with the intervention lasting 78 days, but with specific funding for it approved early on by Congress. In Obama’s case with Libya, no such specific funding has been authorized, and the mission has cost about $750 million already, and has angered forces on the left and the right, including intellectuals and constitutional law professors who contend that the War Powers Act has been further damaged by Obama’s failure to call for action sooner than yesterday.

The author hopes that the resolution will pass, so as to legitimize the intervention, and although the War Powers Act remains considered a “paper tiger” by many observers, it would be best NOT to have it declared totally ineffective, as the issue is not just Obama, but the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to war powers!