Emanuel AME Reverend to Pittsburgh Synagogue: Together, We Will Rise Up

By Rev. Sharon Risher, The Daily Beast

28 October 18

Rev. Sharon Risher lost her mother, two cousins and a best friend in the Charleston church massacre. She offers words of grief—and hope—to survivors of the Pittsburgh shooting.

his morning I woke up in my own bed for the first time after traveling the country, speaking to high-school students about gun violence and the need for stronger gun laws. My daughter Aja made me a beautiful breakfast, and we sat down on the couch to watch TV. The words “breaking news” flashed across the screen as we watched the unfolding coverage of the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. At least 17 people shot, including four police officers, and at least 11 people are dead. The shooter, who is now in custody, reportedly shouted “all Jews must die” before opening fire. We looked at each other and neither of us had to say a word. Tears started flowing from my eyes and they haven’t stopped. All of the emotions from June 17, 2015, flooded over me like it was yesterday.

That fateful day will be etched in my soul for eternity. I was working as a trauma chaplain, helping a family whose grandpa had died. When I returned to my office, I had six missed calls from Aja. I knew immediately something was wrong. I called her back, and in a panicked voice, she told me that something happened at Granny’s church. I felt sick. I knew Momma would have been at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. It’s where she was seven days a week, where she’d worked as the church sexton for the previous five years, and where she worshipped as a member of the congregation. Every moment that passed was agonizing. It wasn’t until the middle of the night when another niece called and confirmed what I already knew in my heart: Momma was dead. I hung up the phone and began to scream.

My mother, Mrs. Ethel Lance; my cousins, Tywanza Sanders and Susie Jackson; and my childhood friend Myra Thompson were killed along with five others, including Reverend Clementa Pinckney. My entire life changed in a second. How does one comprehend such devastation? I’m a trauma chaplain, yet all of my training went out the window. I couldn’t believe this could happen to my mother, to all the others.

Growing up, I witnessed and heard of so many racially motivated hate crimes. But never in my life did I think the country would return to such unspeakable acts of violence and intolerance. The AME church shooting would surely be a wake-up call to our nation. But here we are, three years later, and deadly hate crimes continue to be a scourge upon our nation.

Because of our lax gun laws, we have emboldened hatred and armed it to the teeth. In an average year, more than 10,300 hate crimes involve a firearm—more than 28 each day. Of those, over 20 percent were attacks motivated by bias against a religion, most often anti-Semitism or anti-Islamic prejudice. Black Americans like me are also frequent targets. Just this week, two black Americans were shot and killed at a Kroger grocery store in Kentucky, after the shooter attempted to enter a predominantly black church nearby but was stopped by locked doors. We must do more to disarm hate.

Blacks and Jews are inextricably linked because of our history. We have lived through persecution, and we continue to be the targets of hatred and bigotry. With a heavy heart, I stand in solidarity with my sisters and brothers in the Jewish community. To the Tree of Life congregation and the greater Pittsburgh community, I say: I know what you are feeling. I know what you are going through and how real and raw the pain is. But we are not going to lose faith in humanity. For all the craziness and evil that goes on in this world, the majority of people are good-natured and kind-hearted. We will not let them tear us down. Together, we will rise up.

Since my mother and cousins’ deaths, I have devoted my life to advocating for gun violence prevention. I now understand how easy access to guns, when coupled with hate, becomes deadly.

In Pennsylvania and across the country, this terrifying shooting must be a reminder that the status quo is unacceptable. We have an opportunity in less than two weeks to make a change. It’s up to us to elect lawmakers who will put our safety first by supporting common-sense solutions that can save lives. To those who are beholden to the extremist gun lobby, whose campaigns are funded by the NRA and whose answer to gun violence is always more guns, their time is up.

I will continue to cry. I will continue to pray. But as this latest tragedy reminds us, we all must act and we must vote. In the words of the Tree of Life Congregation’s leader Rabbi Jeffrey Meyers, “We deserve better.”

Reverend Sharon Risher became outspoken about the nation’s gun laws after the shooting at the Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on June 17, 2015. Her beloved mother, Ethel Lee Lance, was killed along with eight others, including two cousins and a childhood friend. Sharon is a member of the Everytown Survivor Network and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

The Powerful Weapon House Republicans Handed Democrats

By Anthony Adragna, Politico

28 October 18

A GOP rule change handed unilateral subpoena authority to many House committee chairmen. Democrats cried foul, but now they hope to use it against Trump.

emocrats eager to investigate the Trump administration if they seize the House would have the GOP to thank for one of their most potent tools — a sweeping subpoena authority that Democratic lawmakers denounced as an abusive power grab three years ago.

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.

Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO.

Oversight would be one of the few concrete goals that Democrats could accomplish with control of only one chamber of Congress and Trump still in the White House. They have a long list of potential targets, including likely demands for Trump's tax returns and probes into Cabinet members such as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

Before the 2015 rule change, most House subpoenas needed at least some bipartisan cover, requiring a majority vote of committee members and consultation with a panel’s ranking member. The change erased those requirements and allowed the chairmen to proceed unilaterally, although the exact rules vary by committee.

Of the 21 standing committees in the House, 14 allow their chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own initiative, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Officially, House Democrats haven’t said whether they will keep the subpoena authority if they end up in charge. But three years ago, Democrats slammed the move as an abuse of the minority party’s rights and a break with generations of tradition — one they warned would have long-term consequences.

“It sets a terrible precedent and would likely become a permanent fixture for the committee,” New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said at a January 2015 hearing. “I think that subpoena authority is a powerful authority and should be used only as a last resort.”

Sixteen Democratic ranking members blasted the move in a February 2015 letter, warning that the move evoked the “abusive model” of unilateral subpoenas used by the likes of former Sen. Joe McCarthy and former House Oversight Chairmen Dan Burton and Darrell Issa.

Even some Republicans worried that giving committee chairmen subpoena power would eventually come back to haunt them.

“I thought it was a mistake then but they did it,” retiring Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) told POLITICO in a recent interview. “It’s a powerful tool and you should either vote on it or it should be bipartisan.”

But such warnings fell on deaf ears, amid GOP accusations that Obama’s agencies were blocking or slow-walking their oversight efforts.

One of the most aggressive using the new authority was House Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who issued dozens of subpoenas to the Obama administration. He demanded records on then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy’s text messages, information on two state attorneys general and environmental groups over a probe into whether Exxon Mobil misled investors about the risks of climate change, and emails concerning a study on climate change, among others.

A spokeswoman for Smith did not respond to requests for comment, but he boasted during a September 2016 hearing that he had issued “25 and still counting” subpoenas in his first year and a half of holding that power. Before 2015, the committee had not issued a single subpoena in 21 years.

“Congressional subpoenas should be used sparingly,” Smith said in a October 2017 House Judiciary Committee hearing. “However, their use became the norm due to the obstruction of our efforts to obtain basic information pertaining to public safety, science, and research.”

Smith’s panel was certainly not alone.

In 2015, House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) used the unilateral subpoena power for the first time in the panel's 150-year history, prompting objections from top committee Democrat Maxine Waters of California. Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, complained that Issa’s 100-plus far exceeded the 78 subpoenas that both Republican and Democratic leaders of that panel had sent between 2003 and 2010 — rarely without concurrence from the minority.

One House Democratic aide said Waters would no doubt want to subpoena the Trump administration if she became the financial services chairman in January. But her decision on whether to keep the unilateral power to do so may depend on how large a majority the Democrats have after the election, and whether committee Democrats would want to have a record on subpoena votes.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-N.M), who would be expected to take the gavel at the Natural Resources Committee in a Democratic House, stopped short in a September interview of saying he’d pursue unilateral subpoenas. But he acknowledged that “that’s the logical next step” if the administration did not comply with Democrats' oversight requests.

Many Democrats argue that Republicans only have themselves to blame for weaponizing the subpoena process, and that their own party should not unilaterally disarm now that the power has been unleashed.

“What goes around comes around,” said former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). “Would I expect them to give up the unilateral subpoena power by chairman? No. And I don’t think they should.”

That’s not the uniform viewpoint of everyone in the party. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) led a group of 38 Democrats in an October 2016 letter urging GOP leaders to abandon the power during the next Congress. He told POLITICO he still thinks chairmen should not have it.

“I would continue to oppose unilateral subpoena power,” Foster said in a statement. “During my time in Congress, I have seen the majority party use this power to compel individuals to testify who differ from the committee chairs on policy matters. Committees should be expected to hold a vote on a subpoena to determine if the committee issues a subpoena.”