Nashville Rep. Andy Ogles Still Hasn’t Taken Down This Horrific Instagram Post After School Shooting

Tennessee Representative Andy Ogles is learning the hard way that the internet has a long memory, as people called him out for an old Instagram post showing his infant son holding a gun.

The Republican lawmaker, known for fabricating parts of his résumé, has come under increased scrutiny since a shooter opened fire Monday on a private Christian elementary school in Nashville, killing at least three children and three adults and wounding several others. Ogles, who represents the district that the Covenant School is located in, has done little more than offer bland statements.

On Wednesday, Kat Abughazaleh, a video producer at Media Matters, found one of Ogles’s old Instagram posts.

The photo shows Ogles’s youngest child holding an automatic rifle. At the time of writing, the post was still up.

People flocked to comments on the 2016 post, calling out Ogles’s hypocrisy in light of Monday’s shooting.

“How do you sleep at night knowing innocent children die and are forever traumatized on your watch and you do nothing,” one commenter said.

Another said, “This is not what responsible gun ownership looks like. This is performative nonsense.”

A third summed it up best: “I don’t care if it’s a toy—you are joking about training a toddler to shoot a gun. It isn’t funny. Parents are burying their kids. Guns are the leading killer of children in this country. Why are you a proud contributor to this madness, @andrew.ogles?”

Ogles already saw widespread backlash Monday when internet users dug up an old family Christmas card of his. In the picture, Ogles, his wife, and their two oldest children hold automatic rifles while posing in front of the Christmas tree. The youngest apparently is only allowed to hold guns on Instagram and so has to hold the “Merry Christmas” sign. Ogles deleted the photo after the criticism, but maintained he does not regret taking it.

Oklahoma Republican Markwayne Mullin seems to think Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite for attacking Starbucks because he wrote a bestselling book that made some money.

Mullin, who earlier this month told the Teamsters union president to “shut your mouth,” made the claims during a Senate hearing Wednesday with former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Arguing that Sanders himself has some money after his book was published (Sanders is still nowhere close to being a billionaire), Mullin seemed to believe the Vermont senator should not be going after Schultz or Starbucks for its union-busting practices.

“Mr. Chairman, you yourself have been very successful, rightfully so, glad you have been. You’ve been in office for 28 years and you and your wife have immersed [sic] a wealth of over $8 million,” Mullin began, incorrectly inflating Sanders’ reported net worth of $3 million.

“If you can be a millionaire, why can’t Mr. Schultz and other CEOs be millionaires and be honest too? If that’s the case, then why is it that Mr. Schultz, who actually creates jobs—and the bestseller of a book isn’t creating any jobs—why is it that he’s corrupt, and you’re not? Why is it that all CEOs are corrupt because they’re wealthy, and yet our chairman—who is wealthy, and I’m glad you are—you’re not?”

Beyond the factual errors, Mullin seemed to be entirely disinterested in the substance of the hearing at all. Why indeed can’t rich people like Schultz be deemed “honest?” Well, if they are carrying out a union-busting campaign to prevent workers from being able to advocate for adequate wages and benefits—and lying about doing so—then, indeed, they could readily be deemed corrupt.

Sanders, for his part, did not play too much into the charade. After briefly countering Mullin’s false claims about his net worth or that he thinks “all CEOs” are corrupt, he focused on the purpose of why they were there at all.

“What this hearing is about is whether workers have the constitutional right to form a union,” Sanders said. “The evidence is overwhelming, not from me, but from the National Labor Relations Board … that time after time after time—despite what Mr. Schultz is saying—Starbucks has broken the law and has prevented workers from joining unions to collectively bargain for decent wages and benefits.”

Mullin himself warrants his own level of scrutiny as to whether he is an “honest” millionaire. The Oklahoma Republican was already swimming in assets worth up to $29.9 million in 2020. The following year, his net worth exploded to be anywhere between $31.6 million and a gargantuan $75.6 million. Mullin received some $1.4 million in federal PPP loans and was among the members of Congress who helped tank the TRUTH Act, which would have required public disclosure of companies receiving those relief funds.

Mullin’s implication that Sanders is somehow hypocritical to hold the rich accountable since he is wealthy is a familiar talking point from the right. Its salience is weak given that, if anything, the talking point actually proves Sanders’s commitment to pursue policies even when they may impact him (like higher taxes on the wealthy).

Moreover, if Sanders is somehow in the wrong for holding fellow rich people accountable (though Schultz is worth 1,000 times as much as Sanders), what does that make rich people like Mullin who defend union-busting CEOs?

Howard Schultz (net worth of $3.7 billion) is not happy with you calling him a billionaire.

During a Wednesday hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Starbucks CEO objected to being described as a billionaire because he did not grow up that way, an argument he seems to think automatically absolves him of any culpability for his current behavior.

“This moniker of billionaire, let’s just get at that, OK?” Schultz started. “I grew up in federally subsidized housing. My parents never owned a home. I came from nothing. I thought my entire life was based on the achievement of the American dream.

“Yes, I have billions of dollars—I earned it. No one gave it to me. And I’ve shared it constantly with the people of Starbucks,” Schultz said (though apparently he has withheld it from workers attempting to unionize). “And so anyone who keeps labeling this billionaire thing,” Schultz trailed off, as Senator Bernie Sanders urged the hearing to keep moving.

“It’s your moniker, constantly,” Schultz interjected. “It’s unfair.”

That one of the richest people in American society feels a level of pressure to not be seen by the public as just another billionaire embodies some shift in the cultural zeitgeist surrounding wealth inequality in this country. And that Schultz attempted to argue that he shared his riches with his workers shows a growing (correct) baseline assumption by many in this country that the rich hoard their unearned wealth from those who helped them attain it in the first place.

It was a small moment in the hearing, but perhaps one that represents a broader cultural shift that could become much more potent, if it is fully activated.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 66–30 to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force, or AUMFs, against Iraq.

The bill will eliminate the authorizations that authorized America’s Gulf War under President George H.W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush.

It has taken a long process for the United States to eliminate the authorizations. In June 2021, the House voted 268–161 to roll back the 2002 AUMF, but the Senate did not advance it any further. Now this Senate’s repeal effort goes to the House, where an array of legislators on both sides of the aisle have expressed their support.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has said he’s “into” the repeal effort—so long as the 2001 AUMF enacted after 9/11 remains untouched. Such an opinion is likely held by many members in both parties. While endorsing the effort to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations, the Biden administration noted that the U.S. “conducts no ongoing military activities that rely primarily” on the pair of authorizations anyhow. “Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military operations,” the administration said in a statement.

And indeed, the 2001 AUMF after September 11 is untouched by this legislation. The authorization has been used to justify U.S. action in Afghanistan, Cuba, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, among others.

Earlier this month, the House rejected a resolution that would have required a withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Syria. Only 56 Democrats and 47 Republicans voted in favor of the resolution.

So it is good to see even Republicans joining the righteous movement to repeal these military authorizations; ideally the margins are even larger in the House vote. But the Senate vote was not even close to unanimous. That, coupled with such an outward impulse exhibited by leaders in both parties to assure that the bill will not impact America’s existing military presence throughout the world, does not inspire confidence about how much reflection the country is actually undergoing. While the repeal signifies some level of chapter-turning, other pages remain wide open and full of space to spill more bloody ink on.

Howard Schultz admitted Starbucks violated labor law during a Wednesday hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Senator Mitt Romney, attempting to defend the former Starbucks CEO, asked Shultz whether nonunion store employees made less than union store employees.

“The starting wage has been the same,” Schultz began. “The only difference is the benefits that we created in May, in my understanding under the law, is that we were not allowed to provide those benefits to people who were organizing to join a union.”

“So, in fact, the nonunion stores are actually a little better total package than the union stores,” Romney responded, unwittingly confirming the labor violation.

It is unclear what law Schultz was referring to that prevented Starbucks from increasing benefits for all workers. Meanwhile, last year, the National Labor Relations Board deemed it a labor law violation to give pay raises and benefits to nonunion stores but deny them from organizing stores.

Romney (co-founder of Bain Capital, one of the largest private investment firms in the nation, and whose net worth is reportedly some $300 million) also complained about the hearing’s premise generally.

“I recognize at the outset there’s some irony to a non–coffee drinking Mormon conservative defending a Democrat candidate for president and perhaps one of the most liberal companies in America,” Romney said, even though Schultz never ran for president, and no matter how many “equality” pictures a company tweets, they are not “liberal” if they union-bust. “That being said, I also think it’s somewhat rich that you’re being grilled by people who have never had the opportunity to create a single job. And yet they believe that they know better how to do so.”

Apparently, according to Romney, you’re not allowed to challenge America’s elites unless you’re a boss.