Richard Burr, United States Senator (But Hopefully Not For Much Longer)

Richard Burr Says Shooting Hillary Clinton Is Hilarious, Judicial Obstruction Is Awesome | News: 

And if Trump loses, and Burr loses, then oh well. Give it about three years tops before Burr helps form Burr, Bayh, and Lieberman Global Intelligence Consulting, or does something similarly dystopian in which he can make real money and have a bigger say over policy without being forced to pander to voters anymore.

There's a splash of cold water for those of us hoping a Deborah Ross victory will reduce the amount of harm Burr is able to inflict on the country as a Senator.

Burr and Tillis, Predictably Disgraceful, Called Out For Their (And Their Party's) Radical Obstructionism

Our Opinion: Supreme opposition - Greensboro News & Record: N&R Editorials: 

“In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country,” Burr said in a statement released by his office Monday. “For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 

That notion is both wrong and a political miscalculation. 

There is no precedent for denying presidents the chance to appoint justices to the court in the final year of their presidency. They have done so several times, most recently in 1988 when the Senate unanimously confirmed President Ronald Reagan’s choice of current Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

Someone could just as credibly argue that Burr, who’s running for re-election this year, should leave important votes to whomever the people of North Carolina choose for his seat in November. But that’s absurd. Burr was elected to a full term; so was Obama. They shouldn’t stop doing their jobs just because their terms are running out. Obama will be in office for 11 more months — plenty of time for the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice, and too long to leave a vacancy.

How it must rankle the neoreactionary souls of the GOP to argue against the Presidency exercising its Constitutional powers, as it must when then they argue the illegality of Executive Orders as well, when they would so dearly love to have one of their own in the office and let the gloves come off.

Make no mistake, just as the right had no problem with Anthony Kennedy when nominated by Reagan, they would have no problem today if this were President Romney's second term in its final year. Their position now is nakedly partisan, hypocritical, and their willingness to pretend otherwise and a radical assault on Constitutional governance.

But, we shouldn't be surprised they care so little for the Constitution, only a sucker ever bought that act to begin with. They loathe democracy, human rights, and anything else that interferes with the ability of oligarchs to impose their will on the people. They love the Constitution only as it suits them.

.@SenThomTillis @SenatorBurr @wectnews Controversy?! There's no controversy. There's partisan obstruction & those enabling it. Do your jobs.

— cdogzilla (@cdogzilla) February 16, 2016

New ☆ Tweet from @igorvolsky

Sen. @ThomTillis received $2,459,881 in expenditures from NRA. He voted against today's background check measure http://pic.twitter.com/U6Vd7a969O

— igorvolsky (@igorvolsky) December 4, 2015

Our other senator, Burr, voted the same way for a lot less of an outlay on the NRA's part. Of course, the money was wasted on them; both those dirty [expletive rhyming with "bunts" deleted] almost certainly would've voted the same way for nothing.

(Still waiting for a cover of the ol' Captain Moonlight ditty geared towards North Carolina politicians ... )

Blogged with IFTTT

NC's Burr reveals ignorance of the Constitution, concept of inalienable rights in Q&A about gun rights, same-sex marriage, etc.

Q&A: Burr talks gun rights, sequester, same-sex marriage :: WRAL.com: 

Sen. Richard Burr (R) NC 

Debra Morgan: Sen. Kay Hagan came out today in support of same-sex marriage. Where do you stand on that issue?
Sen. Richard Burr: I believe that marriage is a function of state law. It has no place in Washington D.C., and I think that as the Supreme Court considers the case in front of them, I think there's a likelihood that the Supreme Court will say, 'We should never even consider this because it will infringe on states' rights. I believe that 50 states would be required then to make a determination then on what the definition of marriage is in their states.

Why state law? Why not city law? County law? Federal law? Imagine a scale of legislative bodies, starting at a hypothetical world government level and sliding all the way down to the smallest municipality capable of passing an ordinance and ask yourself: where would it make the most sense to regulate the institution of marriage?

People all over the world get married, right? People get married in the same faith tradition in different countries, and people get civil marriages and unions without a faith tradition, but it all is -- or should be -- the same. Across the warp and weft of government and religion, marriage is a contract entered into by two adult persons to make a commitment to one another, define obligations to one another, and to enjoy certain rights and privileges thereby. Sure, if you want to treat married couples differently in terms of the benefits your level of government provides, go ahead and do so, but treat all marriage the same, as a marriage. Period.

If your concern is about religious marriage, then consider this, we don't all share *your* religion. Marriage, for better or worse, is a civil institution as well as a religious one. Go ahead and do your religion your way, but don't pretend your religion gets to make the rules for the rest of us. Not a Muslim? Do you think you should have to abide by Sharia law? No? Good, then we agree that when it comes to matters of law and civil institutions, there is no place of religion. (See, my Christian friend, you're a secularist and you didn't even know it!)

If you only care about marriages in the U.S., what damned sense does it make to give one state the right to decide whether another state's marriages are valid are not? Do you get Connecticut married or Mississippi married? No, of course you don't, not any more than you get straight married or gay married. You get married married. The idea that marriage is properly an institution decided from state to state (or city to city, or town to town, or subdivision to subdivision) is laughably stupid.

Was slavery an issue properly decided at the state level? No. Slavery is an issue of liberty and equality -- it's a question about human rights and is answerable at the universal level. Slavery is wrong; it is a violation of human rights and it is right and proper that it be outlawed universally. Likewise, because marriage is an institution that affords couples certain rights and obligations in our society, therefore equal access to the institution is a matter of equality. We are all equal under the law. That is what makes us, to the extent we are, civilized. When you advocate for denying a class of citizens right on the basis of something beyond their control -- such as skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference -- you are advocating for barbarism.

Senator Burr, you reveal yourself to be profoundly ignorant of the concepts of equal protection and human rights when you result to the idiot's argument of  "states' rights". I get that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Fine. Nobody is going to make you marry a man. Don't tell anyone else they can't marry the person they love simply because that person happens to be the same gender. It's bigoted and unfair -- and more the point: unconstitutional.

Also, if you really thought marriage was an issue best left to the states, you'd be a proponent of repealing DOMA. If you're for states defining marriage, and for DOMA, you're being hypocritical.

Morgan: After the Sandy Hook shooting, there was a lot of talk about gun control. That's pared off a little bit. Where do you stand on gun control and what do you think Congress should do about gun control?
Burr: I think Congress should attempt to make sure the background check data that we have incorporates enough information to make an educated decision. Today, there's no health care data, there's no mental health data that's found in a background check. So really, all we're looking to see if somebody who's purchasing a gun has a record, maybe was convicted of a felony that might deprive them of that Second Amendment right. There's no attempt on the Hill to try to incorporate medical records. So to get at the heart of the problem at Sandy Hook, we're not on that pathway. I'm committed to make sure that the Second Amendment is not infringed on in any way, shape or form. And I don't buy the president's argument that an assault weapon was made to hunt. No, an assault weapon was made to allow an American to defend themselves and their property – the exact reason the Second Amendment was created by our founding fathers. They didn't create the amendment for us to have the ability to hunt. And anything we would do to limit the American people to have that right protected would be an infringement to the Second Amendment.

Reminder: the Second Amendment is explicitly worded to make it, not a matter of an individual's right to have whatever weaponry they deem fit, but possible for the state to maintain a well regulated militia. It's worth repeating, "a well regulated militia". The peoples' right to bear arms is expressly about a civic duty of the people: the duty to defend the state. You can be sure the Founding Fathers had in mind the defense of the state against an enemy like the monarchy from which we we had recently broken free.

Yes, yes, I'm very familiar with recent perversions heaped on the Amendment by an incompetent, malevolent Supreme Court; so, fine, we all have to live with those ridiculous decisions until the Court can get it right -- which won't be the Roberts Court, that's for certain. So spare me the lecture about your side of the argument has successfully twisted the Constitution into shape it was never intended. I get it. The Court says you have a right they made up for you because bloodlust. Congratulations. But let's get back to the matter of whether that "right" is limitless.

It is not. You can't park a tank on your lawn. You can't go out and acquire fissionable material to make a nuclear bomb in your garage because you feel menaced by the secularists up north. We all agree, even you (unless you are a lunatic), that it is right and proper for the state to regulate what weaponry a private citizen can own and carry around with them. So let's not pretend the Second Amendment is something it isn't, shall we?

Senator Burr, when you say that the "exact reason" the Amendment was created was to allow for defense of self and property you are, either willfully or ignorantly, getting it exactly wrong. What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand? Your job is to legislate and regulate, and to legislate and regulate well. Do. Your. Fucking. Job.

Roll Call Vote on Motion to Proceed to Consider H. Con. Res. 34

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote:

Burr (R-NC), Yea

Remember, my fellow North Carolinians, remember.

NC's Burr proposes folding the EPA into the Dept. of Energy

Sen. Burr: We don’t need no stinkin’ environment | theCLog: 

Richard Burr's office, seen here emerging for his recent dispatch.

A group of Senate Republicans led by Richard Burr of North Carolina wants to combine the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy into one agency. They claim the merger would save money — but a deeper look at the plan and its backers raises questions about other, dirtier motives.

“This common-sense approach will reduce duplicative and wasteful functions across these two agencies and streamline our approach to a comprehensive, coordinated energy and environmental policy,” Burr said in a statement.

He wants to do what to what?! Every time his office rises from the swamp and Senator Burr (LOD-NC) emerges to make a statement, you just know it's going to be something that would make Lex Luthor proud. Also, remember that when translating Burr-speak to Plain English, "common-sense" means "twisted and malevolent." 

Senator Richard Burr (R - NC) brags about torture (Is wrong on many levels)

Burr brags about torture | BlueNC: 

Richard Burr, can STFU anytime now.

 

Aside from the shameful act of using this information to enhance his political standing, Senator Burr has also demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he doesn't possess the discretion to be briefed on intelligence matters.

I've seen "Yes we did," and "No we didn't" posts and tweets fly all day and haven't had chance to analyze for myself whether we really know if the information that led to ObL's killing was obtained by torture or not. What I haven't seen anybody say yet, is that regardless of whether the intel was the outcome of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or not, it is still illegal, bad policy, and a moral failure to use torture at all.

I haven't heard much out of Burr lately. Good to know he's still the same old [expletive deleted].

NC business leaders to get 2011 economic forecast :: WRAL.com

NC business leaders to get 2011 economic forecast :: WRAL.com:

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina business leaders will hear from experts about how the state's economy should perform next year.

Erskine Bowles, among others, will be in RTP today for the Economic Forecast Forum talking about the state of the State economy and what to expect in the coming year. In addition to Bowles, Wells Fargo economist Mark Vitner and Thad Woodward, President and CEO of the NC Bankers Association will be speaking. The lowlight of the day is expected to be Senator Richard Burr. Burr is on the agenda, presumably, to represent the GOP strategy of distorting the facts, making dire predictions, and making threatening noises about runaway spending with no plans to do anything about it except promising destroy needed social programs while promoting tax breaks for the wealthy, or something along those lines.

Ten Years Later: Looking back on a forecast of Dark Times Ahead

cryptonaut-in-exile: Dark Times Ahead

Gore, in the act of conceding.

Not that you had to be especially prescient a decade ago to realize we were in for a world of hurt under the less than watchful eye of the worst President, I'd argue, this nation has ever endured. Ten years later, it's soul-crushing to watch more of the same corporate-issue clowns get elected to Congress by willing dupes to block the already more than sufficiently milquetoast efforts of our current President.

After the 9/11 attacks happened on Bush's watch, after the response to Katrina was bungled on his watch, after the economy was run into the ground on his watch, after exploding the deficit, after increasing the size and intrusiveness of government, after hamstringing important regulatory agencies so his cronies could run wild and defraud us of billions of dollars, after entangling us in two unwinnable wars of aggression ... and this list of failures is by no means comprehensive ... after all that, George W. Bush says the worst thing to happen to him while he was in office was a pop singer calling him a racist.

Richard Burr's relative cakewalk to re-election in the 2010 midterms is a sign, IMO, that NC's 15 electoral votes will be cast for almost any candidate the Republicans run in 2012 instead of going to Obama again. I'm afraid it's going to take the GOP imploding in order for the Democrat's retain the White House. (And, by "imploding," I mean running Sarah Palin.)

Burr not concerned about infant BPA exposure.

Burr helps chemical companies block infant safety measure | BlueNC:

"According to at least one report, North Carolina Senator Richard Burr has been working with the chemical industry behind the scenes to block the Feinstein provision from being included in the bill."

This will come as no surprise to the few and go unnoticed by the many, as I seriously doubt the MSM will take up the challenge. Which is one big reason why Burr's still in a position to pull stunts like this. Effect, meet Cause.

Well, that didn't take long. A little BPA never hurt anybody, right?

I begged y'all to vote for Marshall. Why, oh why, do Republicans hate babies so much? (A: They aren't fetuses anymore.)

OK, that was me being melodramatic. But, given the concern about BPA, is it possible to love babies and block the Feinstein amendment? (A: No.)

I'd love to hear from any Women for Burr who disagree and are happy to see BPA will continue to be used in the making of baby bottles.

Student turns politician.

Raleigh Public Record » The Latest » College student turns Wake County politician:

Jenna Wadsorth. Via Raleigh Public Record.

As of Nov. 2, North Carolina State University’s Jenna Wadsworth is not only a political science student, she’s the youngest elected official currently serving in North Carolina and the youngest female office holder in state history.

It may be a too early to tap Ms. Wadsworth as a "rising star" in NC politics; however, to win an election at 21 years old is a pretty good start on that path.

It's going to be a while before we get another chance to unseat Burr, so any blip on the Democrat-with-Buzz front gets filed in my mental 'Save for Later' folder.

Signal Change: Yard Sign Edition

This one also signals: "I hate reality."

I noticed this morning that candidate yard signs on lawns no longer signal to me: "Engaged citizen here."  They now signal: "My xmas lights will be on display from November through March."

NCSU poll finds people vote against their interests. (No kidding.)

NCSU News :: NC State News and Information Poll: Public To Vote Against Its Interests On International Trade:

On trade issues, people appear to be voting against their own interests,” says Dr. Michael Cobb, associate professor of political science at NC State and designer of the poll.

The poll also finds that the more people think about international trade agreements, the more they dislike them. “The more they dislike these kinds of agreements, the more likely they are to vote this year, and the more likely they are to support Burr,” Cobb says, “who is an advocate for the very free trade policies they dislike.”

Wake County for Burr (?!)

2010 Election: Live Election Results Maps for House, Senate and Governors Races (washingtonpost.com)

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Congratulations, Wake County. You just helped re-elect one of worst Senators in the country. And, that's no mean feat. He was one of only thirty Republicans brave enough to stand for his pro-rape principles and is a poster boy for Republican spitefulness and contempt for the democratic process. He despises the unemployed.  He's a disaster on economic issues, environmental issues, basic human rights ... the man is a menace and a disgrace.

Burr, Predictably, Is A Complete Zero

Congressional Scorecard - Human Rights Campaign | HRC: You can check your local representatives's scores via the link. Results for Burr:

The man is a menace.

Glasgow Kiss of the Week for Friday, October 22, 2010

Cryptonaut-in-Exile's
Glasgow Kiss of the Week
Award Winner

Dissembling Homophobe Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

I hate to go with Burr a second week in a row. Especially when, earlier this week, it looked like Virginia Thomas was going to run away with the award. But Burr debated Marshall again last night and wrested defeat from the jaws of victory. He had to win again. Nice try though, Mrs. Thomas. I see the crazy in your eyes though, I'm sure you've got another shot at this in the weeks ahead.

Marshall v. Burr, 10/21 Debate Reaction

I missed most of the debate tonight; however, I saw enough to see that Marshall wiped the floor with Burr on the issues. She's not a very polished speaker, even next to Burr, who comes across as a vapid dimwit.

Finally, the question of DADT came up. And Marshall nailed it. Burr was forced to soft-shoe around his obvious homophobia. I burst out laughing when he answered the question "Do you think people are born gay or do they choose the lifestyle?" with such inept dissembling.  To paraphase, "Well, er, I don't think anybody knows. The studies are inconclusive. But, anyone who chooses that lifestyle ..." Seriously. He said he didn't know if homosexuality was genetic or a lifestyle choice, then immediately said people choose. I can't believe this twat ever got elected to public office. Yet, there he is. And, oh boy, did he lay it on thick with the "don't you dare compare homosexuality to race" indignant anger act. Fucking tool. Yes, Mr. Burr, discriminating against gays is functionally equivalent to discriminating based on race. Your homophobia, it's as bad as being a racist. Own it.

Oh, I almost forgot another laugh out loud moment: Burr, when asked to name liberal Democrats he'd be able to work with if re-elected, spent half his time talking about ... wait for it ... Ted Kennedy. Yes, that Ted Kennedy, the dead one. (At least he managed not choke on the name this time.) And, as if that weren't enough, he really dug deep  to show how much of an aisle crosser he would be and also mentioned Chris Dodd. The same Chris Dodd who is about to be replaced by Richard Blumenthal. And wait! There's more.  Guess what other "liberal Democrat" he thought he could work with? Hint, he's also a Senator from Connecticut. You might be thinking: "Huh, there's no other 'liberal Democrat' Senator from CT, is there?"  No, there isn't. It was Lieberman. That was one of Burr's other examples of how far across the aisle he could reach to help move our country forward. Seriously. Dead Kennedy, retiring Dodd, and Republican-in-all-but-name Lieberman were the liberal Democrats Burr could foresee himself working with. (To be fair, he also mentioned Harkin.)

Glasgow Kiss of the Week for Friday, October 15, 2010

Cryptonaut-in-Exile's
Glasgow Kiss of the Week
Award Winner

Obfuscatory Obstructionist Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

That's what I get for using Paint to try to do this photo editing. Crikey, it's a like 4 year old with scissors and Elmer's Glue went at it.

Also-rans for this weeks award:
Republican Candidate for NY Governor Carl Paladino
William Shatner

Indyweek: Marshall for NC

U.S. Congress 2010 Endorsements | Our Endorsements | Independent Weekly:

Elaine Marsahll

WE ENDORSE Democrat Elaine Marshall, whose strong record of public service as a state legislator and as secretary of state for the past 14 years assures that she will represent North Carolinians in the Senate, not special interests and multinational corporations. Unlike Burr, Marshall's proven that she can think for herself, as in her early and forceful opposition to Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Where she thinks Obama is right, however, she'll support him—as in the case of ending Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, a $700 billion Republican boondoggle that the country simply can't afford. (Burr: Pro-boondoggle.)

Belated Marshall v. Burr Debate Notes

A few quick notes from the debate on Monday. We'll see if tonight's debate is more of the same.

• Nobody had anything to say about marriage equality or DADT. That's partly the moderator of the last debate's fault but partly due to Marsahll not bringing it up when asked to discuss the military. With the court injunction yesterday, I imagine that might change for tonight's debate. I'll say it again, Marshall needs to be (1) on the right side of these issues, and (2) make Burr speak his mind. The economy is a mess, the wars are a mess, the GOP is a hot mess of obstructionism: these things are not going to improve as a result of the mid-terms, regardless of what happens. But being passionate about justice for all our citizens is something progressives can get behind, and can motivate them to get out and vote.
• Burr was hilarious on Social Security. Hilariously evil. He trotted out the old "a 30 year old paying in today will not get a single dollar out when retired" canard in service of the not-so-stealth campaign to privatize Social Security. Marshall, on the other hand was clear in her opposition to privatization and rationally pointed out that Social Security solvency looks lots rosier when people have jobs. This is an area she should be hammering Burr, and the GOP at large, on. Hard.
• Nobody really likes the HCR bill that passed. But, it's got to be a halting, labored first step towards something better. Burr made it very clear he wants to let insurers go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and make it harder for kids to stay on their parents insurance longer. All Marshall can really do here is emphasize the positive and pledge to keep trying, which she did.
• Then came the dysfunctional Washington question. Burr again had to stand their like a hypocritical sack of dung and pretend he could be bipartisan. I laughed out loud when he said he had experience working with Ted Kennedy and literally choked on the words. Seriously, check the tape. Burr is the poster boy for spiteful Republican sabotage of the process. This is another area Marshall was strong, but could be even stronger in calling Burr out on the carpet.
• On the question of NC off-shore drilling Burr again was deceptive and transparently acting as the bought and paid for mouthpiece for the oil companies. Marshall was clear in her opposition. Burr turned the question about NC into a chance to blame regulators for the Deep Water Horizon disaster. The gall of that man is ... well, unmitigated. More drilling, less regulation. For real. He also worked in a completely misleading factoid about Alaskan oil clearly meant to trick people into thinking Alaska could produce as much oil as the Middle East.