Trayvon Martin's mother asks Senate to reform 'Stand Your Ground' laws - UPI.com
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Sybrina Fulton, the mother of slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, spoke in front of a Senate panel Wednesday to urge members to clarify "stand your ground" laws.
"It's unfortunate what has happened with Trayvon, and that's why I feel like it's so important for me to be here so that you all can at least put a face with what has happened with this tragedy," Fulton said in the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
Martin, 17, was shot in 2012 by George Zimmerman, who was acquitted of the murder this summer. The case sparked a debate on "stand your ground" laws, even though Zimmerman's defense did not reference the law.
The hearing, which was held to examine the controversial laws, was supposed to be held last month, but was delayed after the shooting in Washington, D.C.'s Navy Yard.
Some Republicans on the committee said the laws do not need to be handled on a federal level, but rather left to the states. Such laws are currently on the books in more than 20 states.
"With only a few exceptions most states are doing quite well with legislating in the area of criminal law without our interference," said Rep. Louie Gohmert.
"Let's leave state criminal law to the consideration of the state legislatures that we in Congress would probably be well served to take advice from the states that are still solvent."
But Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, said the self-defense laws have caused "unnecessary tragedies" and should be reviewed.
"It is clearly time for 'stand your ground' laws to be carefully reviewed and reconsidered," Durbin said.
"Whatever the motivation behind them, it's clear these laws often go too far in encouraging confrontations that escalate into deadly violence. They're resulting in unnecessary tragedies and they are diminishing accountability under our justice system."
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Florida city bans guns for neighborhood watch volunteers - Yahoo News
Florida city bans guns for neighborhood watch volunteers - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The Florida city where neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin is changing the rules on how civilian patrols can operate to help prevent a recurrence and revive the program's reputation.
The new rules, to be released at a community meeting on November 5 in Sanford, Florida, will state explicitly that residents acting under the authority of neighborhood watch may not carry a firearm or pursue someone they deem suspicious.
"Neighborhood watch was always intended to be a program where you observe what is going on and report it to police. In light of everything that has gone on, that's what we're really going to go back and push. That's what this program is and that's all it is," said Shannon Cordingly, spokeswoman for the Sanford Police Department.
Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, was acquitted in July in the February 2012 death of Martin.
The prosecution accused him of racially profiling Martin, a high school student visiting from Miami, and then pursuing, confronting and shooting him.
The jury considered Zimmerman's self-defense claim in light of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which rescinded the duty of citizens to try to retreat from a confrontation.
"People in the community are nervous to join a group (neighborhood watch) that was tarnished in the media and got a bad image with everything that happened. We really want to put those fears to rest and get the community going on the program," Cordingly said.
Neighborhood watch was formally organized in 1972 under the National Sheriffs' Association.
It began as a response to the notorious 1964 murder of Catherine Susan "Kitty" Genovese, whose cries for help as she was attacked outside her Queens apartment were ignored by dozens of neighbors. One was famously quoted as saying she didn't want to get involved.
Today's neighborhood groups often are untrained and unsupervised by police, vary in their dedication to the job, and remain unregistered with either the sheriffs' association or local police agencies.
In 2011, when Zimmerman organized a watch group in his gated neighborhood, Sanford police offered a handbook and a presentation by a police volunteer explaining the role of the group in helping deter crime.
Sanford's new rules are laid out in a more detailed handbook and will require neighborhood watch groups to undergo training, register members with the police department and regularly update their status with the department, Cordingly said.
The neighborhood watch program will be overseen by the department's new full-time three-officer community relations unit, she said.
Cordingly said the police department for the first time will map out the locations and keep track of neighborhood watch groups.
She said any neighborhood watch member who violates the rules, including carrying a weapon, will face removal from the program but will not be charged with a crime.
Martin's family in April settled their wrongful death claim for Trayvon's death against The Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision for what was reportedly at least $1 million.
( This story has been corrected to fix date of Martin's death in 4th paragraph to February 2012 from July 2012)
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The Florida city where neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin is changing the rules on how civilian patrols can operate to help prevent a recurrence and revive the program's reputation.
The new rules, to be released at a community meeting on November 5 in Sanford, Florida, will state explicitly that residents acting under the authority of neighborhood watch may not carry a firearm or pursue someone they deem suspicious.
"Neighborhood watch was always intended to be a program where you observe what is going on and report it to police. In light of everything that has gone on, that's what we're really going to go back and push. That's what this program is and that's all it is," said Shannon Cordingly, spokeswoman for the Sanford Police Department.
Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, was acquitted in July in the February 2012 death of Martin.
The prosecution accused him of racially profiling Martin, a high school student visiting from Miami, and then pursuing, confronting and shooting him.
The jury considered Zimmerman's self-defense claim in light of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which rescinded the duty of citizens to try to retreat from a confrontation.
"People in the community are nervous to join a group (neighborhood watch) that was tarnished in the media and got a bad image with everything that happened. We really want to put those fears to rest and get the community going on the program," Cordingly said.
Neighborhood watch was formally organized in 1972 under the National Sheriffs' Association.
It began as a response to the notorious 1964 murder of Catherine Susan "Kitty" Genovese, whose cries for help as she was attacked outside her Queens apartment were ignored by dozens of neighbors. One was famously quoted as saying she didn't want to get involved.
Today's neighborhood groups often are untrained and unsupervised by police, vary in their dedication to the job, and remain unregistered with either the sheriffs' association or local police agencies.
In 2011, when Zimmerman organized a watch group in his gated neighborhood, Sanford police offered a handbook and a presentation by a police volunteer explaining the role of the group in helping deter crime.
Sanford's new rules are laid out in a more detailed handbook and will require neighborhood watch groups to undergo training, register members with the police department and regularly update their status with the department, Cordingly said.
The neighborhood watch program will be overseen by the department's new full-time three-officer community relations unit, she said.
Cordingly said the police department for the first time will map out the locations and keep track of neighborhood watch groups.
She said any neighborhood watch member who violates the rules, including carrying a weapon, will face removal from the program but will not be charged with a crime.
Martin's family in April settled their wrongful death claim for Trayvon's death against The Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision for what was reportedly at least $1 million.
( This story has been corrected to fix date of Martin's death in 4th paragraph to February 2012 from July 2012)
Monday, October 28, 2013
Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? - Yahoo News
Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The 2016 presidential election is more than three years away, but potential candidates and their supporters are already contemplating the next campaign. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas—now well-known for his role in the recent federal shutdown—and California’s celebrity former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are among those whose names are circulating. But neither Cruz nor Schwarzenegger was born in the United States, and the Constitution provides that “[n]o person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
For Cruz, Schwarzenegger, and a number of other potential candidates, the Natural Born Citizenship Clause raises a critical question: Is anyone born outside the United States constitutionally eligible to serve as president?
Senator John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, faced the same question with respect to his natural-born citizenship status in his 2008 presidential bid, and purported concerns about President Obama’s constitutional qualifications led “birthers” to file lawsuits challenging his natural-born credentials on the basis of a variety of far-fetched theories during the last several years. A new natural-born citizenship debate is already simmering, and it seems likely to heat up a great deal before the 2016 election takes place.
The Constitution does not define the term natural born citizen. Even so, Governor Schwarzenegger is clearly out of the running. Given that he was born in Austria to Austrian parents, there is no basis for arguing that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
For Senator Cruz—who was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father—the question is more complicated. There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born. The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship requirement. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling—or a constitutional amendment—the parameters of the clause remain uncertain.
The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787. At the time, as Justice Joseph Story later explained in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, many of the framers worried about “ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” Jay wrote.
Washington thanked Jay for his hints in a reply dated September 2, 1787. Shortly thereafter, the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.
While it is possible to trace the origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause, it is harder to determine its intended scope—who did the framers mean to exclude from the presidency by this language? The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.
Although subsequent naturalization acts dropped the natural born language, members of later Congresses proposed many bills and resolutions designed to clarify, limit, or eliminate the Natural Born Citizenship Clause; none succeeded. In April 2008, however, amid challenges to Senator McCain’s eligibility to serve as president, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that “John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
The resolution—co-sponsored by a number of McCain’s Senate colleagues, including rival presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—undoubtedly offered Senator McCain some comfort, but it had no real constitutional significance.
Challenges to presidential qualifications are not new. In 1964, for example, questions arose as to the natural-born credentials of Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, because he was born in Arizona prior to statehood. In 1968, legal actions were threatened against former Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents in Mexico, when he sought the Republican nomination.
Despite the shadow that lawsuits may cast over a presidential bid, the obstacles to successful litigation of natural-born citizenship challenges are formidable. These matters raise a wide array of justiciability concerns. Standing issues led to the dismissal of lawsuits filed in federal courts in New Hampshire and California challenging Senator McCain’s natural-born status in 2008 (Hollander v. McCain, Robinson v. Bowen), as well as to the dismissal of claims brought by a Guyana-born naturalized citizen who argued that the Fifth and 14th Amendments effectively repealed the natural born citizenship clause (Hassan v. Federal Election Committee).
Standing is not the only obstacle to adjudication of natural-born citizenship issues. Claims that a candidate lacks the requisite natural-born citizenship credentials are unlikely to ripen until a nominee is chosen, or perhaps even elected, and federal courts may be reluctant to delve into the merits of challenges to a candidate’s natural-born citizenship status on political question grounds.
What can we expect if Senator Cruz or another similarly situated candidate runs for president in 2016? Undoubtedly, the controversy will continue with passionate advocates on both sides of the issue. A scholarly consensus is emerging, however, that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II.
This consensus rests on firm foundations. First, given Jay’s letter and the language of the 1790 naturalization act, it seems evident that the framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad. Second, the 14-year residency requirement Article II also imposes as a presidential prerequisite ensures that, regardless of their place of birth, would-be presidents must spend a significant time living in the United States before they can run for office.
Finally, the natural born citizenship clause is both an anomaly and an anachronism. The way in which the clause differentiates among United States citizens is contrary to the overall spirit of the Constitution; the risk that foreign nobility will infiltrate our government is long past; and place of birth is a poor surrogate for loyalty to one’s homeland in our increasingly mobile society and our ever more interconnected world. The best solution would be to amend the Constitution, as many legislators on both sides of the aisle have proposed over the years. In the absence of an amendment, the clause should be narrowly interpreted.
Sarah Helene Duggin is Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Public Policy Program for the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America. She has authored several academic articles on the natural-born citizenship proviso.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The 2016 presidential election is more than three years away, but potential candidates and their supporters are already contemplating the next campaign. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas—now well-known for his role in the recent federal shutdown—and California’s celebrity former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are among those whose names are circulating. But neither Cruz nor Schwarzenegger was born in the United States, and the Constitution provides that “[n]o person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
For Cruz, Schwarzenegger, and a number of other potential candidates, the Natural Born Citizenship Clause raises a critical question: Is anyone born outside the United States constitutionally eligible to serve as president?
Senator John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, faced the same question with respect to his natural-born citizenship status in his 2008 presidential bid, and purported concerns about President Obama’s constitutional qualifications led “birthers” to file lawsuits challenging his natural-born credentials on the basis of a variety of far-fetched theories during the last several years. A new natural-born citizenship debate is already simmering, and it seems likely to heat up a great deal before the 2016 election takes place.
The Constitution does not define the term natural born citizen. Even so, Governor Schwarzenegger is clearly out of the running. Given that he was born in Austria to Austrian parents, there is no basis for arguing that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
For Senator Cruz—who was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father—the question is more complicated. There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born. The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship requirement. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling—or a constitutional amendment—the parameters of the clause remain uncertain.
The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787. At the time, as Justice Joseph Story later explained in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, many of the framers worried about “ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” Jay wrote.
Washington thanked Jay for his hints in a reply dated September 2, 1787. Shortly thereafter, the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.
While it is possible to trace the origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause, it is harder to determine its intended scope—who did the framers mean to exclude from the presidency by this language? The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.
Although subsequent naturalization acts dropped the natural born language, members of later Congresses proposed many bills and resolutions designed to clarify, limit, or eliminate the Natural Born Citizenship Clause; none succeeded. In April 2008, however, amid challenges to Senator McCain’s eligibility to serve as president, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that “John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
The resolution—co-sponsored by a number of McCain’s Senate colleagues, including rival presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—undoubtedly offered Senator McCain some comfort, but it had no real constitutional significance.
Challenges to presidential qualifications are not new. In 1964, for example, questions arose as to the natural-born credentials of Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, because he was born in Arizona prior to statehood. In 1968, legal actions were threatened against former Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents in Mexico, when he sought the Republican nomination.
Despite the shadow that lawsuits may cast over a presidential bid, the obstacles to successful litigation of natural-born citizenship challenges are formidable. These matters raise a wide array of justiciability concerns. Standing issues led to the dismissal of lawsuits filed in federal courts in New Hampshire and California challenging Senator McCain’s natural-born status in 2008 (Hollander v. McCain, Robinson v. Bowen), as well as to the dismissal of claims brought by a Guyana-born naturalized citizen who argued that the Fifth and 14th Amendments effectively repealed the natural born citizenship clause (Hassan v. Federal Election Committee).
Standing is not the only obstacle to adjudication of natural-born citizenship issues. Claims that a candidate lacks the requisite natural-born citizenship credentials are unlikely to ripen until a nominee is chosen, or perhaps even elected, and federal courts may be reluctant to delve into the merits of challenges to a candidate’s natural-born citizenship status on political question grounds.
What can we expect if Senator Cruz or another similarly situated candidate runs for president in 2016? Undoubtedly, the controversy will continue with passionate advocates on both sides of the issue. A scholarly consensus is emerging, however, that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II.
This consensus rests on firm foundations. First, given Jay’s letter and the language of the 1790 naturalization act, it seems evident that the framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad. Second, the 14-year residency requirement Article II also imposes as a presidential prerequisite ensures that, regardless of their place of birth, would-be presidents must spend a significant time living in the United States before they can run for office.
Finally, the natural born citizenship clause is both an anomaly and an anachronism. The way in which the clause differentiates among United States citizens is contrary to the overall spirit of the Constitution; the risk that foreign nobility will infiltrate our government is long past; and place of birth is a poor surrogate for loyalty to one’s homeland in our increasingly mobile society and our ever more interconnected world. The best solution would be to amend the Constitution, as many legislators on both sides of the aisle have proposed over the years. In the absence of an amendment, the clause should be narrowly interpreted.
Sarah Helene Duggin is Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Public Policy Program for the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America. She has authored several academic articles on the natural-born citizenship proviso.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Sharpton threatens store boycott over profile suit - Yahoo News
Sharpton threatens store boycott over profile suit - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The Rev. Al Sharpton threatened Saturday to boycott luxury retailer Barneys if the department store doesn't respond adequately to allegations by black shoppers that they were racially profiled there.
Christian sued Barneys, saying he was accused of fraud after using his debit card to buy a $349 Ferragamo belt in April.
Barneys said Thursday that it had retained a civil rights expert to help review its procedures. The CEO of Barneys, Mark Lee, offered his "sincere regret and deepest apologies."
Kirsten John Foy, an official with Sharpton's National Action Network, said he would meet with Barneys officials on Tuesday to discuss the racial profiling allegations.
"The only theft that took place at Barneys was Barneys' stealing the dignity of these young people," said Foy, who joined Sharpton at his weekly rally at the organization's Harlem headquarters.
Sharpton said black New Yorkers should put shopping at Barneys "on hold" if the retailer's response is inadequate.
The profiling claims also incited criticism on Twitter and an online petition asking rapper Jay-Z, who's collaborating with the luxury retailer for a holiday collection, to disassociate from it.
Macy's was also hit with a lawsuit alleging racial profiling this week.
A black actor on the HBO drama series "Treme" said Friday he was stopped by police because of his race while shopping at Macy's flagship Manhattan store.
Robert Brown said in his lawsuit that he was detained by police June 8 after employees contacted authorities about possible credit card fraud.
Macy's didn't comment on the litigation but said in a statement it was investigating.
Some Sharpton supporters who attended Saturday's rally said they had been profiled in stores, too.
Shane Lee, 51, said he went to the high-end store Bergdorf Goodman to buy shirts last year and the sales staff would not assist him.
"Instead of helping me, they were staring at me," said Lee, who is black. "I felt so uncomfortable that I just left."
A Bergdorf Goodman official did not return a call seeking comment Saturday.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The Rev. Al Sharpton threatened Saturday to boycott luxury retailer Barneys if the department store doesn't respond adequately to allegations by black shoppers that they were racially profiled there.
"We've gone from stop and frisk to shop and frisk, and we are not going to take it," the black civil rights leader said. "We are not going to live in a town where our money is considered suspect and everyone else's money is respected."
Two black Barneys New York customers, Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, said this week they were detained by police after making expensive purchases. Christian sued Barneys, saying he was accused of fraud after using his debit card to buy a $349 Ferragamo belt in April.
Barneys said Thursday that it had retained a civil rights expert to help review its procedures. The CEO of Barneys, Mark Lee, offered his "sincere regret and deepest apologies."
Kirsten John Foy, an official with Sharpton's National Action Network, said he would meet with Barneys officials on Tuesday to discuss the racial profiling allegations.
"The only theft that took place at Barneys was Barneys' stealing the dignity of these young people," said Foy, who joined Sharpton at his weekly rally at the organization's Harlem headquarters.
Sharpton said black New Yorkers should put shopping at Barneys "on hold" if the retailer's response is inadequate.
The profiling claims also incited criticism on Twitter and an online petition asking rapper Jay-Z, who's collaborating with the luxury retailer for a holiday collection, to disassociate from it.
Macy's was also hit with a lawsuit alleging racial profiling this week.
A black actor on the HBO drama series "Treme" said Friday he was stopped by police because of his race while shopping at Macy's flagship Manhattan store.
Robert Brown said in his lawsuit that he was detained by police June 8 after employees contacted authorities about possible credit card fraud.
Macy's didn't comment on the litigation but said in a statement it was investigating.
Some Sharpton supporters who attended Saturday's rally said they had been profiled in stores, too.
Shane Lee, 51, said he went to the high-end store Bergdorf Goodman to buy shirts last year and the sales staff would not assist him.
"Instead of helping me, they were staring at me," said Lee, who is black. "I felt so uncomfortable that I just left."
A Bergdorf Goodman official did not return a call seeking comment Saturday.
Grand jury indicted JonBenet Ramsey parents - Yahoo News
Grand jury indicted JonBenet Ramsey parents - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
A grand jury found enough evidence to indict the parents of JonBenet Ramsey for child abuse and accessory to first-degree murder in the 6-year-old's death, newly unsealed documents revealed Friday, nearly a decade after DNA evidence cleared the couple.
But the 1999 documents shed no light on who was responsible for the child beauty queen's death, and 14 years later, authorities are no closer to finding her killer.
The documents confirmed reports earlier this year that grand jurors had indeed recommended an indictment in the case, contrary to the long-held perception that the secret panel ended their work without deciding to charge anyone.
At the time, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter didn't mention an indictment, saying only that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant charges against the Ramseys, who had long maintained their innocence.
The grand jury met three years after JonBenet's body was found bludgeoned and strangled in the basement of her family's home in Boulder, the day after Christmas in 1996. Lurid details of the crime and striking video footage of the child in adult makeup and suggestive pageant costumes propelled the case into one of the highest-profile mysteries in the U.S., unleashing a series of true-crime books and TV specials.
Many tabloid headlines later, tests in 2008 on newly discovered DNA left behind by someone who touched JonBenet's long underwear pointed to the involvement of an "unexplained third party" in her slaying, and not the Ramseys or their son, Burke.
The tests led Hunter's successor, Mary Lacy, to clear the Ramseys, two years after Patsy Ramsey died of cancer. In a letter to John Ramsey, she called the couple "victims of this crime."
Finding a match in the nation's growing DNA database could hold the best hope for someday solving the killing of JonBenet, who would now be 23. Her slaying is considered a cold case, open but not under active investigation.
One of John Ramsey's attorneys, L. Lin Wood, said the documents released Friday are "nonsensical" and the grand jurors didn't have the benefit of having the DNA results.
"They reveal nothing about the evidence reviewed by the grand jury and are clearly the result of a confused and compromised process," he said.
While the killer's identity is still unknown, Wood said there's no mystery about the Ramseys' role.
"The Ramsey family is innocent," he said. "That part of the case, based on the DNA evidence, is a done deal."
Boulder police, who were criticized for their handling of the investigation, issued a statement saying the documents show the grand jury agreed with investigators that probable cause existed to file charges. However, the statement acknowledged that the evidence would have to meet a higher standard than probable cause for prosecutors to take the case to trial.
The current district attorney, Stan Garnett, declined to comment but will publish an op-ed piece on Sunday, given the complexity of the case, a spokeswoman said.
David Lane, a defense attorney not involved in the case, said prosecutors may have handed it over to grand jurors because problems in the investigation could have made it difficult to prosecute. But he said that could have backfired with a "runaway grand jury" that reached its own conclusions.
He said the indictments could have been an attempt to force the parents to turn against each other, which he said was unlikely because both were protected by laws that limit testimony of one spouse against another.
"Somebody killed JonBenet Ramsey," Lane said. "It sounds like they were accused of aiding and abetting each other, with the hope someone would crack and break. That didn't happen, and prosecutors may have decided not to go forward."
Although the grand jury foreman signed the 1999 indictments, prosecutors decided not to bring charges.
Christina Habas, a retired judge who oversaw grand juries in Denver, said it's at the discretion of the district attorney whether to file charges because prosecutors have to consider whether they can convince a trial jury of someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The indictments might have been a compromise among jurors who were divided on what counts should be approved, said Nancy Leong, an assistant law professor at the University of Denver. The release of only four of 18 charging pages, and the numbering of the charges, suggest other possible charges were passed over. The charge of accessory to a crime might have been an attempt to "meet in the middle," Leong said.
"And that would also explain why the prosecutor didn't want to continue with the prosecution of the crime, because there might not have been enough evidence to prove the parents helped someone else cover up the crime," she said.
Whatever the motivation behind them, the documents add little or nothing to the public understanding of what happened to JonBenet, Leong said.
"We don't know much more factually, if anything, than we did in 1996," she said.
The Daily Camera newspaper in Boulder reported earlier this year that the grand jury had issued indictments, and the documents were released in response to a lawsuit filed by its reporter, Charlie Brennan, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
A grand jury found enough evidence to indict the parents of JonBenet Ramsey for child abuse and accessory to first-degree murder in the 6-year-old's death, newly unsealed documents revealed Friday, nearly a decade after DNA evidence cleared the couple.
But the 1999 documents shed no light on who was responsible for the child beauty queen's death, and 14 years later, authorities are no closer to finding her killer.
The documents confirmed reports earlier this year that grand jurors had indeed recommended an indictment in the case, contrary to the long-held perception that the secret panel ended their work without deciding to charge anyone.
At the time, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter didn't mention an indictment, saying only that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant charges against the Ramseys, who had long maintained their innocence.
The grand jury met three years after JonBenet's body was found bludgeoned and strangled in the basement of her family's home in Boulder, the day after Christmas in 1996. Lurid details of the crime and striking video footage of the child in adult makeup and suggestive pageant costumes propelled the case into one of the highest-profile mysteries in the U.S., unleashing a series of true-crime books and TV specials.
Many tabloid headlines later, tests in 2008 on newly discovered DNA left behind by someone who touched JonBenet's long underwear pointed to the involvement of an "unexplained third party" in her slaying, and not the Ramseys or their son, Burke.
The tests led Hunter's successor, Mary Lacy, to clear the Ramseys, two years after Patsy Ramsey died of cancer. In a letter to John Ramsey, she called the couple "victims of this crime."
Finding a match in the nation's growing DNA database could hold the best hope for someday solving the killing of JonBenet, who would now be 23. Her slaying is considered a cold case, open but not under active investigation.
One of John Ramsey's attorneys, L. Lin Wood, said the documents released Friday are "nonsensical" and the grand jurors didn't have the benefit of having the DNA results.
"They reveal nothing about the evidence reviewed by the grand jury and are clearly the result of a confused and compromised process," he said.
While the killer's identity is still unknown, Wood said there's no mystery about the Ramseys' role.
"The Ramsey family is innocent," he said. "That part of the case, based on the DNA evidence, is a done deal."
Boulder police, who were criticized for their handling of the investigation, issued a statement saying the documents show the grand jury agreed with investigators that probable cause existed to file charges. However, the statement acknowledged that the evidence would have to meet a higher standard than probable cause for prosecutors to take the case to trial.
The current district attorney, Stan Garnett, declined to comment but will publish an op-ed piece on Sunday, given the complexity of the case, a spokeswoman said.
David Lane, a defense attorney not involved in the case, said prosecutors may have handed it over to grand jurors because problems in the investigation could have made it difficult to prosecute. But he said that could have backfired with a "runaway grand jury" that reached its own conclusions.
He said the indictments could have been an attempt to force the parents to turn against each other, which he said was unlikely because both were protected by laws that limit testimony of one spouse against another.
"Somebody killed JonBenet Ramsey," Lane said. "It sounds like they were accused of aiding and abetting each other, with the hope someone would crack and break. That didn't happen, and prosecutors may have decided not to go forward."
Although the grand jury foreman signed the 1999 indictments, prosecutors decided not to bring charges.
Christina Habas, a retired judge who oversaw grand juries in Denver, said it's at the discretion of the district attorney whether to file charges because prosecutors have to consider whether they can convince a trial jury of someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The indictments might have been a compromise among jurors who were divided on what counts should be approved, said Nancy Leong, an assistant law professor at the University of Denver. The release of only four of 18 charging pages, and the numbering of the charges, suggest other possible charges were passed over. The charge of accessory to a crime might have been an attempt to "meet in the middle," Leong said.
"And that would also explain why the prosecutor didn't want to continue with the prosecution of the crime, because there might not have been enough evidence to prove the parents helped someone else cover up the crime," she said.
Whatever the motivation behind them, the documents add little or nothing to the public understanding of what happened to JonBenet, Leong said.
"We don't know much more factually, if anything, than we did in 1996," she said.
The Daily Camera newspaper in Boulder reported earlier this year that the grand jury had issued indictments, and the documents were released in response to a lawsuit filed by its reporter, Charlie Brennan, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Black Women Face a Greater Risk of Domestic Violence. : ThyBlackMan.com
Black Women Face a Greater Risk of Domestic Violence. : ThyBlackMan.com
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The high toll gun violence exacts on black males is all too well known. Less known is the fact that black women also face a disproportionate risk of lethal violence.
That’s what we found in a new study released by my organization, the Violence Policy Center, for Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Using data from the FBI’s unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report, we found that black women are murdered by men at a rate more than two and a half times higher than white women.
In 2011, the most recent year for which such data is available, black females were murdered by males at a rate of 2.61 per 100,000 in single victim/single offender incidents. For white women, the rate was 0.99 per 100,000.
To understand these numbers, here are some important facts to keep in mind. First, the primary risk of violence does not come from strangers. Ninety-four
percent of black women were murdered by someone they knew (a proportion that is equally high for white women).
And the vast majority of homicides of black females were not related to any other felony crime. Most often, they were killed in the course of an argument. In cases where the circumstances could be identified, 87 percent were not related to the commission of any other felony.
If not strangers, then who are the killers? At least half of the murders were a result of domestic violence. Among the black female victims who knew their offenders, 52 percent were wives, common-law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends. Also, 93 percent of the homicides were intra-racial.
Gun violence plays a predominant role in homicides among black women. When the murder weapon could be identified, 51 percent of black female victims were shot and killed with a gun. Within that group, 82 percent were shot and killed with a handgun.
That’s why women tempted to buy a gun for their self-protection should know that guns aren’t the answer to domestic violence. In fact, several studies have found that having a gun in the home actually increases a woman’s chance of being murdered. For African Americans as well as other women, guns are used not to save lives but to take them.
We should not sit back and accept a society where black women face a higher chance of getting killed. Women should be aware of resources that are available to help them escape domestic violence situations. And we simply cannot wait any longer before we pass effective laws to stop our national epidemic of gun violence.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The high toll gun violence exacts on black males is all too well known. Less known is the fact that black women also face a disproportionate risk of lethal violence.
That’s what we found in a new study released by my organization, the Violence Policy Center, for Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Using data from the FBI’s unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report, we found that black women are murdered by men at a rate more than two and a half times higher than white women.
In 2011, the most recent year for which such data is available, black females were murdered by males at a rate of 2.61 per 100,000 in single victim/single offender incidents. For white women, the rate was 0.99 per 100,000.
To understand these numbers, here are some important facts to keep in mind. First, the primary risk of violence does not come from strangers. Ninety-four
percent of black women were murdered by someone they knew (a proportion that is equally high for white women).And the vast majority of homicides of black females were not related to any other felony crime. Most often, they were killed in the course of an argument. In cases where the circumstances could be identified, 87 percent were not related to the commission of any other felony.
If not strangers, then who are the killers? At least half of the murders were a result of domestic violence. Among the black female victims who knew their offenders, 52 percent were wives, common-law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends. Also, 93 percent of the homicides were intra-racial.
Gun violence plays a predominant role in homicides among black women. When the murder weapon could be identified, 51 percent of black female victims were shot and killed with a gun. Within that group, 82 percent were shot and killed with a handgun.
That’s why women tempted to buy a gun for their self-protection should know that guns aren’t the answer to domestic violence. In fact, several studies have found that having a gun in the home actually increases a woman’s chance of being murdered. For African Americans as well as other women, guns are used not to save lives but to take them.
We should not sit back and accept a society where black women face a higher chance of getting killed. Women should be aware of resources that are available to help them escape domestic violence situations. And we simply cannot wait any longer before we pass effective laws to stop our national epidemic of gun violence.
Koch brothers’ Arizona allies fined $1 million over hiding California campaign funding | The Raw Story
Koch brothers’ Arizona allies fined $1 million over hiding California campaign funding | The Raw Story
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Two dark money groups linked to conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have paid a record $1 million in fines to California to settle allegations that the combined $15 million they spent on two ballot proposals in the state was not properly disclosed.
The civil settlement, announced Thursday afternoon in Sacramento, caps a year of investigation into the activities of the two Arizona groups, Americans for Responsible Leadership and the Center to Protect Patient Rights.
The settlement disclosed new details in the case, including how the money was raised and how the Center to Protect Patient Rights disguised its two contributions to two California political committees. As part of the settlement, the Center to Protect Patient Rights conceded it was responsible for funneling $11 million through Americans for Responsible Leadership to a political committee spending money to fight a tax-hike measure and to support a proposition restricting unions’ political power.
The Center to Protect Patient Rights also gave an additional $4 million to another dark money group, the American Future Fund, which gave the money to another political committee spending on the anti-union measure.
“What is the takeaway from this trail of dark money?” asked Ann Ravel, the outgoing head of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which investigated the groups along with the state attorney general’s office. “This is a nationwide issue. These groups exploit loopholes in the law to undermine the clear purpose of the law, to give essential information to the public.”
The state assessed one $500,000 fine to the Center to Protect Patient Rights only, and another $500,000 fine to the two groups jointly. The state is also demanding that the two political committees “disgorge,” or hand over, the $15 million they received in improper donations through the Center to Protect Patient Rights before the end of November. All of the money would go to California’s general fund.
In an interview, Gary Winuk, the chief of enforcement for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, acknowledged that the state may have to go to court to recover that $15 million. One of the political committees has already closed down.
The settlement says California authorities determined that the Center to Protect Patient Rights “inadvertently, or at worst negligently,” did not report itself as a donor to the American Future Fund. A similar decision was made on the group’s lack of disclosure to Americans for Responsible Leadership.
In a statement sent through its lawyer, the Center to Protect Patient Rights said the commission recognized it erred largely because it had never before made contributions in California and that it had no intention to violate campaign reporting rules.
“Also, the California Attorney General conducted a complete and thorough investigation and agreed that the conduct was unintentional and inadvertent,” said the lawyer, Malcolm Segal.
Americans for Responsible Leadership did not return a message seeking comment.
Anonymous money funneled through social welfare nonprofits and trade associations has become a major factor in federal elections since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in early 2010 opened up the door to unlimited corporate and union spending on outside ads, as documented by ProPublica. In the past two election cycles, social welfare nonprofits have spent more than $350 million, mostly from unknown donors, on election ads telling people to vote for or against federal candidates.
Some national groups have also started playing on the state level, particularly with ballot proposals.
The California agreement, reached on Oct. 17, underscored how some states, such as California, Idaho and Montana, have actually done more to identify anonymous donors than the Federal Election Commission. In June, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman imposed regulations attempting to require disclosure for money spent on state elections. A new disclosure bill has been introduced in California. This month, after a push by California’s Ravel, regulators from 10 states announced the launch of a nationwide effort to encourage the disclosure of donors.
But the settlement also highlights the limitations of investigations into who’s behind dark money groups: Instead of unmasking some reclusive billionaire or shy corporation, regulators often uncover yet another nonprofit, like a set of Russian nesting dolls. The original sources of the money spent in California were not publicly identified, nor will they be.
“A number of donors did not want to be identified,” said Winuk, the enforcement chief for California’s campaign finance regulator, who received only a redacted list of donors for the original contributions.
And while the groups have been linked to the Koch brothers, it’s not clear how exactly they’re connected. The Center to Protect Patient Rights, which operates out of a post office box in Arizona and doesn’t even have a website, has been described practically like an ATM machine for various groups affiliated with the Koch brothers. The press release issued by California authorities says the Center and Americans for Responsible Leadership “operated as part of the ‘Koch Brothers Network’ of dark money political nonprofit corporations.”
The Kochs have long been known for spending millions to influence elections behind the scenes, through a complex network of groups that critics have nicknamed “the Kochtopus.” The Kochs themselves have remained determinedly in the background.
One link between these two groups and the Koch network is Sean Noble, a GOP strategist who runs two political consulting firms and is the sole employee of the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which was launched in 2009. In 2010, he spoke on a panel at a Koch brothers’ secretive retreat, small semiannual affairs that are invitation-only and closed to the media. In 2010 and 2011, the Center to Protect Patient Rights handed out almost $60 million to conservative groups that spent tens of millions on election ads. The Huffington Post recently quoted a GOP operative describing Noble as “the wizard behind the screen” for the Koch network’s election efforts in 2012.
Noble did not return a call for comment.
Another link is Wayne Gable, a former top official at Koch Industries who has also served in leadership roles in several nonprofits formed by the Kochs. In 2011, Gable launched a new trade association that gave almost $115 million to the Center to Protect Patient Rights over the following year. It’s not yet clear how the Center doled out its money, as its tax return for 2012 isn’t yet available.
The leader of Americans for Responsible Leadership has close ties to Noble. Republican Kirk Adams hired Noble’s firm in 2011 and 2012 to help run his failed campaign to replace outgoing U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake in Arizona. Adams lost in the primary in August 2012; the next month, he was named president of Americans for Responsible Leadership.
According to the settlement, some $24.5 million of the money distributed by the Center to Protect Patient Rights was raised by GOP strategist Tony Russo for another organization, Americans for Job Security, a Virginia-based trade association. (Russo didn’t return calls for comment.)
Americans for Job Security gave the money to the Center to Protect Patient Rights. Then the Center gave about $7 million to the Iowa dark money powerhouse American Future Fund on Sept. 11, 2012; of that, the American Future Fund gave about $4 million to a new California committee, the California Future Fund for Free Markets, which supported the anti-union measure. That committee has since closed down.
The Center also gave $18 million to Americans for Responsible Leadership in October 2012, recommending that the group “should use the funds to support common social interests, including support” for the Small Business Action Committee PAC, a committee that Russo was also raising money for, the settlement said. Americans for Responsible Leadership then gave $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee PAC to spend on the two ballot proposals.
That $11 million contribution sparked a complaint, an investigation and a court battle. Just before the election, Americans for Responsible Leadership admitted that it got its money from the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which in turn got the money from Americans for Job Security.
The fine is the largest in California history in a campaign-finance case.
The manner in which the groups paid it speaks volumes about how dark their money really is.
They paid by cashier’s check, sent by a Sacramento lawyer’s office Thursday morning, betraying no clue to the money’s origin.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Two dark money groups linked to conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have paid a record $1 million in fines to California to settle allegations that the combined $15 million they spent on two ballot proposals in the state was not properly disclosed.
The civil settlement, announced Thursday afternoon in Sacramento, caps a year of investigation into the activities of the two Arizona groups, Americans for Responsible Leadership and the Center to Protect Patient Rights.
The settlement disclosed new details in the case, including how the money was raised and how the Center to Protect Patient Rights disguised its two contributions to two California political committees. As part of the settlement, the Center to Protect Patient Rights conceded it was responsible for funneling $11 million through Americans for Responsible Leadership to a political committee spending money to fight a tax-hike measure and to support a proposition restricting unions’ political power.
The Center to Protect Patient Rights also gave an additional $4 million to another dark money group, the American Future Fund, which gave the money to another political committee spending on the anti-union measure.
“What is the takeaway from this trail of dark money?” asked Ann Ravel, the outgoing head of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which investigated the groups along with the state attorney general’s office. “This is a nationwide issue. These groups exploit loopholes in the law to undermine the clear purpose of the law, to give essential information to the public.”
The state assessed one $500,000 fine to the Center to Protect Patient Rights only, and another $500,000 fine to the two groups jointly. The state is also demanding that the two political committees “disgorge,” or hand over, the $15 million they received in improper donations through the Center to Protect Patient Rights before the end of November. All of the money would go to California’s general fund.
In an interview, Gary Winuk, the chief of enforcement for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, acknowledged that the state may have to go to court to recover that $15 million. One of the political committees has already closed down.
The settlement says California authorities determined that the Center to Protect Patient Rights “inadvertently, or at worst negligently,” did not report itself as a donor to the American Future Fund. A similar decision was made on the group’s lack of disclosure to Americans for Responsible Leadership.
In a statement sent through its lawyer, the Center to Protect Patient Rights said the commission recognized it erred largely because it had never before made contributions in California and that it had no intention to violate campaign reporting rules.
“Also, the California Attorney General conducted a complete and thorough investigation and agreed that the conduct was unintentional and inadvertent,” said the lawyer, Malcolm Segal.
Americans for Responsible Leadership did not return a message seeking comment.
Anonymous money funneled through social welfare nonprofits and trade associations has become a major factor in federal elections since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in early 2010 opened up the door to unlimited corporate and union spending on outside ads, as documented by ProPublica. In the past two election cycles, social welfare nonprofits have spent more than $350 million, mostly from unknown donors, on election ads telling people to vote for or against federal candidates.
Some national groups have also started playing on the state level, particularly with ballot proposals.
The California agreement, reached on Oct. 17, underscored how some states, such as California, Idaho and Montana, have actually done more to identify anonymous donors than the Federal Election Commission. In June, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman imposed regulations attempting to require disclosure for money spent on state elections. A new disclosure bill has been introduced in California. This month, after a push by California’s Ravel, regulators from 10 states announced the launch of a nationwide effort to encourage the disclosure of donors.
But the settlement also highlights the limitations of investigations into who’s behind dark money groups: Instead of unmasking some reclusive billionaire or shy corporation, regulators often uncover yet another nonprofit, like a set of Russian nesting dolls. The original sources of the money spent in California were not publicly identified, nor will they be.
“A number of donors did not want to be identified,” said Winuk, the enforcement chief for California’s campaign finance regulator, who received only a redacted list of donors for the original contributions.
And while the groups have been linked to the Koch brothers, it’s not clear how exactly they’re connected. The Center to Protect Patient Rights, which operates out of a post office box in Arizona and doesn’t even have a website, has been described practically like an ATM machine for various groups affiliated with the Koch brothers. The press release issued by California authorities says the Center and Americans for Responsible Leadership “operated as part of the ‘Koch Brothers Network’ of dark money political nonprofit corporations.”
The Kochs have long been known for spending millions to influence elections behind the scenes, through a complex network of groups that critics have nicknamed “the Kochtopus.” The Kochs themselves have remained determinedly in the background.
One link between these two groups and the Koch network is Sean Noble, a GOP strategist who runs two political consulting firms and is the sole employee of the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which was launched in 2009. In 2010, he spoke on a panel at a Koch brothers’ secretive retreat, small semiannual affairs that are invitation-only and closed to the media. In 2010 and 2011, the Center to Protect Patient Rights handed out almost $60 million to conservative groups that spent tens of millions on election ads. The Huffington Post recently quoted a GOP operative describing Noble as “the wizard behind the screen” for the Koch network’s election efforts in 2012.
Noble did not return a call for comment.
Another link is Wayne Gable, a former top official at Koch Industries who has also served in leadership roles in several nonprofits formed by the Kochs. In 2011, Gable launched a new trade association that gave almost $115 million to the Center to Protect Patient Rights over the following year. It’s not yet clear how the Center doled out its money, as its tax return for 2012 isn’t yet available.
The leader of Americans for Responsible Leadership has close ties to Noble. Republican Kirk Adams hired Noble’s firm in 2011 and 2012 to help run his failed campaign to replace outgoing U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake in Arizona. Adams lost in the primary in August 2012; the next month, he was named president of Americans for Responsible Leadership.
According to the settlement, some $24.5 million of the money distributed by the Center to Protect Patient Rights was raised by GOP strategist Tony Russo for another organization, Americans for Job Security, a Virginia-based trade association. (Russo didn’t return calls for comment.)
Americans for Job Security gave the money to the Center to Protect Patient Rights. Then the Center gave about $7 million to the Iowa dark money powerhouse American Future Fund on Sept. 11, 2012; of that, the American Future Fund gave about $4 million to a new California committee, the California Future Fund for Free Markets, which supported the anti-union measure. That committee has since closed down.
The Center also gave $18 million to Americans for Responsible Leadership in October 2012, recommending that the group “should use the funds to support common social interests, including support” for the Small Business Action Committee PAC, a committee that Russo was also raising money for, the settlement said. Americans for Responsible Leadership then gave $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee PAC to spend on the two ballot proposals.
That $11 million contribution sparked a complaint, an investigation and a court battle. Just before the election, Americans for Responsible Leadership admitted that it got its money from the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which in turn got the money from Americans for Job Security.
The fine is the largest in California history in a campaign-finance case.
The manner in which the groups paid it speaks volumes about how dark their money really is.
They paid by cashier’s check, sent by a Sacramento lawyer’s office Thursday morning, betraying no clue to the money’s origin.
How Rand Paul's Proposed Constitutional Amendment Could Make Rand Paul Super-Rich | ThinkProgress
How Rand Paul's Proposed Constitutional Amendment Could Make Rand Paul Super-Rich | ThinkProgress
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports: October 22, 2013 at 10:25 am
In an attempt to breathe more life into a false claim that the Affordable Care Act gives special privileges to members of Congress — in reality, Obamacare requires lawmakers to purchase health insurance on an exchange but allows them to keep the same employer contribution to these costs that every other federal employee enjoys — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a constitutional amendment that would supposedly “hold government officials to the same standard as the American people.” Yet his amendment is so poorly drafted that it would likely have the exact opposite effect of what he claims. Should Paul’s amendment be ratified, it could convert members of Congress into a superprivileged class entitled to collect every welfare benefit offered by the federal government, regardless of their age, health or income.
Paul’s amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress,” and then includes similar provisions applying to executive branch officials and federal judges. The problem with this language, however, is that it makes no distinction between laws that give special privileges to members of Congress and laws that exclude them from federal benefits for entirely legitimate reasons.
To give an absurd — but entirely plausible example, given the breadth of the Paul amendment’s language — Congress recently enacted a bill that includes a one-time payment for the widow of the late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), which is a typical practice when a member of Congress dies in office. Under Paul’s very broad constitutional language, however, a law that is applicable to just one citizen — in this case, Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg — must also be “equally applicable” to members of Congress. Thus, every member of Congress could sue to demand that they also receive a payment equal to the death benefit paid to Lautenberg’s widow. Under Paul’s broad language, such a lawsuit could very well succeed.
Nor is this problem unique to one-off laws providing benefits to individual citizens. Federal Medicare law excludes most Americans under the age of 65 from receiving benefits. But if the Constitution explicitly prohibits laws that are “applicable to a citizen of the United States” but “not equally applicable to Congress,” then it is not at all clear that federal law can deny Medicare benefits to any member of Congress so long as those benefits are enjoyed by any U.S. citizen. Medicare benefits are “applicable” to Americans over 65, so they must also be “applicable” to members of Congress. The same could be true about Social Security benefits. And food stamps. And veterans benefits. And federal employee retirement benefits.
Indeed, Paul’s amendment is so broadly drafted that it could immediately grant to every member of Congress every single benefit offered to anyone at all under federal law. Because Medal of Honor recipients currently receive a monthly pension of $1,259 as a reward for their service, members of Congress could potentially also have to receive this pension, despite having done nothing to earn it.
Admittedly, the intent of Paul’s amendment is to limit the privileges afforded to members of Congress, not to transform them into recipients of the most generous and unnecessary welfare program in American history. So it is possible that the courts would ignore the literal meaning of the amendment and interpret it narrowly to merely forbid laws that give special privileges to lawmakers. Even this interpretation is problematic, however.
To give just one example, Senate Rule XXIII prohibits all but a short list of mostly high-ranking government officials from being present on the Senate floor while the body is in session. Under Paul’s amendment, however, if just one citizen is barred from setting foot on the Senate floor, then this bar must also be “equally applicable” to the senators themselves. Conceivably, Congress could rectify this situation by opening the Senate floor up to everyone, but it would be virtually impossible to conduct legislative business if literally any U.S. citizen — or, perhaps, thousands of them at a time — could rush the Senate floor.
Paul is well-known for his idiosyncratic understanding of the Constitution. He once praised a widely reviled Supreme Court decision that would protect employers seeking to exploit their workers, and he labeled whites-only lunch counters the “hard part about believing in freedom.” Given his tendency to read our founding document and see things there that few other people see, it’s probably a bad idea for him to draft new amendments to add onto that document — even if those amendments actually do what he says they will do.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports: October 22, 2013 at 10:25 am
Paul’s amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress,” and then includes similar provisions applying to executive branch officials and federal judges. The problem with this language, however, is that it makes no distinction between laws that give special privileges to members of Congress and laws that exclude them from federal benefits for entirely legitimate reasons.
To give an absurd — but entirely plausible example, given the breadth of the Paul amendment’s language — Congress recently enacted a bill that includes a one-time payment for the widow of the late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), which is a typical practice when a member of Congress dies in office. Under Paul’s very broad constitutional language, however, a law that is applicable to just one citizen — in this case, Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg — must also be “equally applicable” to members of Congress. Thus, every member of Congress could sue to demand that they also receive a payment equal to the death benefit paid to Lautenberg’s widow. Under Paul’s broad language, such a lawsuit could very well succeed.
Nor is this problem unique to one-off laws providing benefits to individual citizens. Federal Medicare law excludes most Americans under the age of 65 from receiving benefits. But if the Constitution explicitly prohibits laws that are “applicable to a citizen of the United States” but “not equally applicable to Congress,” then it is not at all clear that federal law can deny Medicare benefits to any member of Congress so long as those benefits are enjoyed by any U.S. citizen. Medicare benefits are “applicable” to Americans over 65, so they must also be “applicable” to members of Congress. The same could be true about Social Security benefits. And food stamps. And veterans benefits. And federal employee retirement benefits.
Indeed, Paul’s amendment is so broadly drafted that it could immediately grant to every member of Congress every single benefit offered to anyone at all under federal law. Because Medal of Honor recipients currently receive a monthly pension of $1,259 as a reward for their service, members of Congress could potentially also have to receive this pension, despite having done nothing to earn it.
Admittedly, the intent of Paul’s amendment is to limit the privileges afforded to members of Congress, not to transform them into recipients of the most generous and unnecessary welfare program in American history. So it is possible that the courts would ignore the literal meaning of the amendment and interpret it narrowly to merely forbid laws that give special privileges to lawmakers. Even this interpretation is problematic, however.
To give just one example, Senate Rule XXIII prohibits all but a short list of mostly high-ranking government officials from being present on the Senate floor while the body is in session. Under Paul’s amendment, however, if just one citizen is barred from setting foot on the Senate floor, then this bar must also be “equally applicable” to the senators themselves. Conceivably, Congress could rectify this situation by opening the Senate floor up to everyone, but it would be virtually impossible to conduct legislative business if literally any U.S. citizen — or, perhaps, thousands of them at a time — could rush the Senate floor.
Paul is well-known for his idiosyncratic understanding of the Constitution. He once praised a widely reviled Supreme Court decision that would protect employers seeking to exploit their workers, and he labeled whites-only lunch counters the “hard part about believing in freedom.” Given his tendency to read our founding document and see things there that few other people see, it’s probably a bad idea for him to draft new amendments to add onto that document — even if those amendments actually do what he says they will do.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Kennedy cousin Skakel wins new trial in 1975 death - Yahoo News
Kennedy cousin Skakel wins new trial in 1975 death - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel was granted a new trial on Wednesday by a Connecticut judge who ruled his attorney failed to adequately represent him when he was convicted in 2002 of killing his neighbor in 1975.
The ruling by Judge Thomas Bishop marked a dramatic reversal after years of unsuccessful appeals by Skakel, the 52-year-old nephew of Robert F. Kennedy's widow, Ethel Kennedy. Skakel is serving 20 years to life.
Bridgeport State's Attorney John Smriga said prosecutors will appeal the decision.
Skakel's current attorney, Hubert Santos, said he expects to file a motion for bail on Thursday. If a judge approves it, Skakel could then post bond and be released from prison.
"We're very, very thrilled," Santos said. "I always felt that Michael was innocent."
Skakel argued his trial attorney, Michael Sherman, was negligent in defending him when he was convicted in the golf club bludgeoning of Martha Moxley when they were 15 in wealthy Greenwich. Santos called the case weak.
Prosecutors contended Sherman's efforts far exceeded standards and that the verdict was based on compelling evidence against Skakel.
John Moxley, the victim's brother, said the ruling took him and his family by surprise and they hope the state wins an appeal.
"Having been in the courtroom during the trial, there were a lot of things that Mickey Sherman did very cleverly," Moxley said about Skakel's trial lawyer. "But the evidence was against him. And when the evidence is against you, there's almost nothing you can do.
"I don't care if it was Perry Mason," Moxley said. "The state had the evidence. It was his own words and deeds that led to the conviction."
In his ruling, the judge wrote that defense in such a case requires attention to detail, an energetic investigation and a coherent plan of defense.
"Trial counsel's failures in each of these areas of representation were significant and, ultimately, fatal to a constitutionally adequate defense," Thomas wrote. "As a consequence of trial counsel's failures as stated, the state procured a judgment of conviction that lacks reliability."
During a state trial in April on the appeal, Skakel took the stand and blasted Sherman's handling of the case, portraying him as an overly confident lawyer having fun and basking in the limelight while making fundamental mistakes from poor jury picks to failing to track down key witnesses.
Santos argued that the prosecutors' case rested entirely on two witnesses of dubious credibility who came forward with stories of confessions after 20 years and the announcement of a reward. Skakel had an alibi, he said.
Santos contends Sherman was "too enamored with the media attention to focus on the defense." Sherman told criminal defense attorneys at a seminar in Las Vegas six months before the trial that one of his goals in representing Skakel was to have a "good time," Santos said.
"Defending a murder charge is not about enjoying oneself, it is about zealously advocating for the client and providing him with the assistance guaranteed by our constitution," Santos wrote in court papers. "It is not about getting invited to A-list parties in New York City, or launch parties for the trendy new television show, or going to the Academy Awards and all the 'cool parties' afterwards."
Sherman has said he did all he could to prevent Skakel's conviction and denied he was distracted by media attention in the high-profile case.
Santos contends Sherman failed to obtain or present evidence against earlier suspects, failed to sufficiently challenge the state's star witness and other testimony and made risky jury picks including a police officer.
Prosecutors countered that Sherman spent thousands of hours preparing the defense, challenged the state on large and small legal issues, consulted experts and was assisted by some of the state's top lawyers. Sherman attacked the state's evidence, presented an alibi and pointed the finger at an earlier suspect, prosecutors said.
"This strategy failed not because of any fault of Sherman's, but because of the strength of the state's case," prosecutor Susann Gill wrote in court papers.
The state's case included three confessions and nearly a dozen incriminating statements by Skakel over the years, Gill said. She also said there was strong evidence of motive.
"His drug-addled mental state, coupled with the infuriating knowledge that his hated brother Tommy had a sexual liaison with Martha, and the fact that Martha spurned his advances, triggered the rage which led him to beat her to death with a golf club," Gill wrote.
Gill said what Sherman did with his personal time was irrelevant. She said the evidence cited by the defense was not significant and that Sherman had sound strategic reasons for his decisions.
Skakel, who maintains his innocence, was denied parole last year and was told he would not be eligible again to be considered for release for five years.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel was granted a new trial on Wednesday by a Connecticut judge who ruled his attorney failed to adequately represent him when he was convicted in 2002 of killing his neighbor in 1975.
The ruling by Judge Thomas Bishop marked a dramatic reversal after years of unsuccessful appeals by Skakel, the 52-year-old nephew of Robert F. Kennedy's widow, Ethel Kennedy. Skakel is serving 20 years to life.
Bridgeport State's Attorney John Smriga said prosecutors will appeal the decision.
Skakel's current attorney, Hubert Santos, said he expects to file a motion for bail on Thursday. If a judge approves it, Skakel could then post bond and be released from prison.
"We're very, very thrilled," Santos said. "I always felt that Michael was innocent."
Skakel argued his trial attorney, Michael Sherman, was negligent in defending him when he was convicted in the golf club bludgeoning of Martha Moxley when they were 15 in wealthy Greenwich. Santos called the case weak.
Prosecutors contended Sherman's efforts far exceeded standards and that the verdict was based on compelling evidence against Skakel.
John Moxley, the victim's brother, said the ruling took him and his family by surprise and they hope the state wins an appeal.
"Having been in the courtroom during the trial, there were a lot of things that Mickey Sherman did very cleverly," Moxley said about Skakel's trial lawyer. "But the evidence was against him. And when the evidence is against you, there's almost nothing you can do.
"I don't care if it was Perry Mason," Moxley said. "The state had the evidence. It was his own words and deeds that led to the conviction."
In his ruling, the judge wrote that defense in such a case requires attention to detail, an energetic investigation and a coherent plan of defense.
"Trial counsel's failures in each of these areas of representation were significant and, ultimately, fatal to a constitutionally adequate defense," Thomas wrote. "As a consequence of trial counsel's failures as stated, the state procured a judgment of conviction that lacks reliability."
During a state trial in April on the appeal, Skakel took the stand and blasted Sherman's handling of the case, portraying him as an overly confident lawyer having fun and basking in the limelight while making fundamental mistakes from poor jury picks to failing to track down key witnesses.
Santos argued that the prosecutors' case rested entirely on two witnesses of dubious credibility who came forward with stories of confessions after 20 years and the announcement of a reward. Skakel had an alibi, he said.
Santos contends Sherman was "too enamored with the media attention to focus on the defense." Sherman told criminal defense attorneys at a seminar in Las Vegas six months before the trial that one of his goals in representing Skakel was to have a "good time," Santos said.
"Defending a murder charge is not about enjoying oneself, it is about zealously advocating for the client and providing him with the assistance guaranteed by our constitution," Santos wrote in court papers. "It is not about getting invited to A-list parties in New York City, or launch parties for the trendy new television show, or going to the Academy Awards and all the 'cool parties' afterwards."
Sherman has said he did all he could to prevent Skakel's conviction and denied he was distracted by media attention in the high-profile case.
Santos contends Sherman failed to obtain or present evidence against earlier suspects, failed to sufficiently challenge the state's star witness and other testimony and made risky jury picks including a police officer.
Prosecutors countered that Sherman spent thousands of hours preparing the defense, challenged the state on large and small legal issues, consulted experts and was assisted by some of the state's top lawyers. Sherman attacked the state's evidence, presented an alibi and pointed the finger at an earlier suspect, prosecutors said.
"This strategy failed not because of any fault of Sherman's, but because of the strength of the state's case," prosecutor Susann Gill wrote in court papers.
The state's case included three confessions and nearly a dozen incriminating statements by Skakel over the years, Gill said. She also said there was strong evidence of motive.
"His drug-addled mental state, coupled with the infuriating knowledge that his hated brother Tommy had a sexual liaison with Martha, and the fact that Martha spurned his advances, triggered the rage which led him to beat her to death with a golf club," Gill wrote.
Gill said what Sherman did with his personal time was irrelevant. She said the evidence cited by the defense was not significant and that Sherman had sound strategic reasons for his decisions.
Skakel, who maintains his innocence, was denied parole last year and was told he would not be eligible again to be considered for release for five years.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Police: Nev. school shooter, 12, got gun from home - Yahoo News
Police: Nev. school shooter, 12, got gun from home - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The 12-year-old student who opened fire on a Nevada middle school campus, wounding two classmates and killing a teacher before he turned the gun on himself, got the weapon from his home, authorities said Tuesday.
Washoe County School District police said they are still working to determine how the boy obtained the 9mm semi-automatic Ruger handgun used in the Monday morning spree at Sparks Middle School. The boy's parents are cooperating with authorities and could face charges in the case, police said.
Authorities say they're withholding the seventh-grader's name out of respect for his family.
At a news conference Tuesday, law enforcement and school officials again lauded the actions of 45-year-old math teacher and former Marine Michael Landsberry, who tried to stop the rampage before he was killed.
"I cannot express enough appreciation for Mr. Landsberry," Washoe County School District Superintendent Pedro Martinez said. "He truly is a hero."
The violence started before the first bell of the day rang, as students filed off buses and gathered for class. The boy opened fire outside a school building, hitting one 12-year-old student in the shoulder. He then headed toward a basketball court, where he encountered Landsberry.
The teacher walked calmly toward the shooter and lifted his hands, asking the boy to hand over his weapon.
"He was telling him to stop and put the gun down," student Jose Cazares told NBC's "Today" show Tuesday. "Then the kid, he yelled out 'No!' Like, he was yelling at him, and he shot him."
Landsberry suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the chest.
Still, his actions gave students enough time to run to safety, according to Washoe County School District Police Chief Mike Mieras.
Police said they believe the shooter at one point tried to enter the school but couldn't open the door because of emergency lockdown procedures.
After killing Landsberry, the boy fired at a second student, hitting him in the abdomen. He then shot himself in the head.
The two 12-year-old boys who were wounded are in stable condition and recovering.
Authorities provided no motive for the shooting but said they've interviewed 20 or 30 witnesses and are looking into any prior connection the victims had with the shooter.
"Everybody wants to know why — that's the big question," Sparks Deputy Police Chief Tom Miller said. "The answer is, we don't know right now."
Parents clung to their children at an evacuation center shortly after the shooting while the community struggled to make sense of the latest episode of schoolyard violence, which happened less than a year after the Newtown, Conn., massacre.
Sparks, just east of Reno, has a population of roughly 90,000.
Landsberry coached several youth sports. He also served two tours in Afghanistan with the Nevada National Guard and was well-known in the school community, Sparks Mayor Geno Martini said. Landsberry served in the Marine Corps from 1986 to 1990 and was stationed in Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Okinawa, Japan, according to military records.
The mayor praised the response from officers, who arrived at the scene within 3 minutes of the initial 911 calls to find the shooter dead.
"They got it under control very quickly and shut down the scene," said Martini, who urged listeners on a local radio station hours after the shooting to be sure all guns in their homes were safely locked away.
Students from the middle school and neighboring elementary school were evacuated to a high school, and all classes were canceled. The middle school will remain closed for the week, while an adjacent elementary school is set to reopen Wednesday.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The 12-year-old student who opened fire on a Nevada middle school campus, wounding two classmates and killing a teacher before he turned the gun on himself, got the weapon from his home, authorities said Tuesday.
Washoe County School District police said they are still working to determine how the boy obtained the 9mm semi-automatic Ruger handgun used in the Monday morning spree at Sparks Middle School. The boy's parents are cooperating with authorities and could face charges in the case, police said.
Authorities say they're withholding the seventh-grader's name out of respect for his family.
At a news conference Tuesday, law enforcement and school officials again lauded the actions of 45-year-old math teacher and former Marine Michael Landsberry, who tried to stop the rampage before he was killed.
"I cannot express enough appreciation for Mr. Landsberry," Washoe County School District Superintendent Pedro Martinez said. "He truly is a hero."
The violence started before the first bell of the day rang, as students filed off buses and gathered for class. The boy opened fire outside a school building, hitting one 12-year-old student in the shoulder. He then headed toward a basketball court, where he encountered Landsberry.
The teacher walked calmly toward the shooter and lifted his hands, asking the boy to hand over his weapon.
"He was telling him to stop and put the gun down," student Jose Cazares told NBC's "Today" show Tuesday. "Then the kid, he yelled out 'No!' Like, he was yelling at him, and he shot him."
Landsberry suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the chest.
Still, his actions gave students enough time to run to safety, according to Washoe County School District Police Chief Mike Mieras.
Police said they believe the shooter at one point tried to enter the school but couldn't open the door because of emergency lockdown procedures.
After killing Landsberry, the boy fired at a second student, hitting him in the abdomen. He then shot himself in the head.
The two 12-year-old boys who were wounded are in stable condition and recovering.
Authorities provided no motive for the shooting but said they've interviewed 20 or 30 witnesses and are looking into any prior connection the victims had with the shooter.
"Everybody wants to know why — that's the big question," Sparks Deputy Police Chief Tom Miller said. "The answer is, we don't know right now."
Parents clung to their children at an evacuation center shortly after the shooting while the community struggled to make sense of the latest episode of schoolyard violence, which happened less than a year after the Newtown, Conn., massacre.
Sparks, just east of Reno, has a population of roughly 90,000.
Landsberry coached several youth sports. He also served two tours in Afghanistan with the Nevada National Guard and was well-known in the school community, Sparks Mayor Geno Martini said. Landsberry served in the Marine Corps from 1986 to 1990 and was stationed in Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Okinawa, Japan, according to military records.
The mayor praised the response from officers, who arrived at the scene within 3 minutes of the initial 911 calls to find the shooter dead.
"They got it under control very quickly and shut down the scene," said Martini, who urged listeners on a local radio station hours after the shooting to be sure all guns in their homes were safely locked away.
Students from the middle school and neighboring elementary school were evacuated to a high school, and all classes were canceled. The middle school will remain closed for the week, while an adjacent elementary school is set to reopen Wednesday.
Monday, October 21, 2013
U.S. tries to calm Saudi anger over Syria, Iran - Yahoo News
U.S. tries to calm Saudi anger over Syria, Iran - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sought on Monday to calm rising tensions with Saudi Arabia, which has spurned a U.N. Security Council seat in fury at inaction over the crisis in Syria.
Saudi Arabia rejected a coveted two-year term on the council on Friday in a rare display of anger over what it called "double standards" at the United Nations. Its stance won praise from its Gulf Arab allies and Egypt.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal hosted a lunch for Kerry at his private residence in Paris on Monday. U.S. officials said Washington and Riyadh shared the goals of a nuclear-free Iran, an end to Syria's civil war and a stable Egypt.
A senior State Department official told reporters after the lunch that Kerry cited the advantages of being on the 15-member body, which can authorize military action, impose sanctions and set up peacekeeping operations.
"Secretary Kerry conveyed that while it is Saudi Arabia's decision to make, the U.S. values Saudi Arabia's leadership in the region and the international community," the U.S. official said.
"A seat on the UNSC affords member states the opportunity to engage directly," the official added.
The council has been paralyzed over the 31-month-old Syria conflict, with permanent members Russia and China repeatedly blocking measures to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a longtime ally of Riyadh's regional arch-rival Iran.
Saudi Arabia backs the mostly Sunni Muslim rebels fighting to overthrow Assad. The Syrian leader, whose Alawite sect is derived from Shi'ite Islam, has support from Iran and the armed Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah. The Syrian leader denounces his foes as al Qaeda-linked groups backed by Sunni-ruled states.
Riyadh's frustration with Russia and China now extends to the United States, not only over Syria, but also over Washington's acquiescence in the fall of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and its new quest for a nuclear deal with Iran.
No country has previously been elected to the council and then walked away. As an incoming member, Saudi Arabia would have taken up its seat on January 1 for a two-year term. Riyadh demanded unspecified reforms in the world's top security institution.
"BRAVE SAUDI POSITION"
Saudi anger boiled over after the United States dropped the threat of military strikes in response to a poison gas attack in Damascus in August by agreeing to give up his chemical arsenal.
Saudi Arabia was also concerned about signs of a tentative reconciliation between Washington and Tehran, something Riyadh fears may lead to a "grand bargain" on the Iranian nuclear program that leaves it at a disadvantage.
Expressions of support for Saudi Arabia from its Gulf allies contained no overt criticism of U.S. policy, but echoed the kingdom's complaints about the Security Council's failure to end the war in Syria and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Kuwait shares Riyadh's pain, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Khaled al-Jarallah said, citing the "bloody massacres" in Syria and the "suffering of the Palestinian people". He said the Saudi rejection of a council seat had sent a message to the world.
Plaudits also came from Cairo, which was promised billions of dollars in aid from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in July after the army ousted President Mohamed Mursi. Most Gulf states view his Muslim Brotherhood with suspicion.
By contrast, Washington has cut aid to Egypt's military.
"This brave Saudi position is favored with all of Egypt's respect and appreciation," Egypt's Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy said in a statement.
The Egyptian head of the Cairo-based Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, also said Riyadh had every right to protest against the management of the Security Council, which he said should rethink the veto-wielding powers of its five permanent members.
The Saudi decision has handed the U.N. secretary-general and the permanent council members "historic responsibility to review the role of the United Nations, its powers and its charter," UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said.
Bahrain praised Riyadh's "clear and courageous stand", while Qatar suggested it could shake the world out of complacency.
Addressing his Saudi counterpart, Qatar's Foreign Minister Khalid bin Mohamed al-Attiyah wrote on Twitter: "When you are angry, you send the world into disarray, so thank you."
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sought on Monday to calm rising tensions with Saudi Arabia, which has spurned a U.N. Security Council seat in fury at inaction over the crisis in Syria.
Saudi Arabia rejected a coveted two-year term on the council on Friday in a rare display of anger over what it called "double standards" at the United Nations. Its stance won praise from its Gulf Arab allies and Egypt.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal hosted a lunch for Kerry at his private residence in Paris on Monday. U.S. officials said Washington and Riyadh shared the goals of a nuclear-free Iran, an end to Syria's civil war and a stable Egypt.
A senior State Department official told reporters after the lunch that Kerry cited the advantages of being on the 15-member body, which can authorize military action, impose sanctions and set up peacekeeping operations.
"Secretary Kerry conveyed that while it is Saudi Arabia's decision to make, the U.S. values Saudi Arabia's leadership in the region and the international community," the U.S. official said.
"A seat on the UNSC affords member states the opportunity to engage directly," the official added.
The council has been paralyzed over the 31-month-old Syria conflict, with permanent members Russia and China repeatedly blocking measures to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a longtime ally of Riyadh's regional arch-rival Iran.
Saudi Arabia backs the mostly Sunni Muslim rebels fighting to overthrow Assad. The Syrian leader, whose Alawite sect is derived from Shi'ite Islam, has support from Iran and the armed Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah. The Syrian leader denounces his foes as al Qaeda-linked groups backed by Sunni-ruled states.
Riyadh's frustration with Russia and China now extends to the United States, not only over Syria, but also over Washington's acquiescence in the fall of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and its new quest for a nuclear deal with Iran.
No country has previously been elected to the council and then walked away. As an incoming member, Saudi Arabia would have taken up its seat on January 1 for a two-year term. Riyadh demanded unspecified reforms in the world's top security institution.
"BRAVE SAUDI POSITION"
Saudi anger boiled over after the United States dropped the threat of military strikes in response to a poison gas attack in Damascus in August by agreeing to give up his chemical arsenal.
Saudi Arabia was also concerned about signs of a tentative reconciliation between Washington and Tehran, something Riyadh fears may lead to a "grand bargain" on the Iranian nuclear program that leaves it at a disadvantage.
Expressions of support for Saudi Arabia from its Gulf allies contained no overt criticism of U.S. policy, but echoed the kingdom's complaints about the Security Council's failure to end the war in Syria and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Kuwait shares Riyadh's pain, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Khaled al-Jarallah said, citing the "bloody massacres" in Syria and the "suffering of the Palestinian people". He said the Saudi rejection of a council seat had sent a message to the world.
Plaudits also came from Cairo, which was promised billions of dollars in aid from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in July after the army ousted President Mohamed Mursi. Most Gulf states view his Muslim Brotherhood with suspicion.
By contrast, Washington has cut aid to Egypt's military.
"This brave Saudi position is favored with all of Egypt's respect and appreciation," Egypt's Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy said in a statement.
The Egyptian head of the Cairo-based Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, also said Riyadh had every right to protest against the management of the Security Council, which he said should rethink the veto-wielding powers of its five permanent members.
The Saudi decision has handed the U.N. secretary-general and the permanent council members "historic responsibility to review the role of the United Nations, its powers and its charter," UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said.
Bahrain praised Riyadh's "clear and courageous stand", while Qatar suggested it could shake the world out of complacency.
Addressing his Saudi counterpart, Qatar's Foreign Minister Khalid bin Mohamed al-Attiyah wrote on Twitter: "When you are angry, you send the world into disarray, so thank you."
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Violence hits Montenegro capital's first Gay Pride march - Yahoo News
Violence hits Montenegro capital's first Gay Pride march - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Twenty police officers were injured on Sunday in clashes with hundreds of stone-throwing protesters opposed to the first Gay Pride march held in Montenegro's capital, a hospital said.
Police used tear gas and clubs to stop protesters throwing stones and firecrackers from getting near the marchers who had been given an official green light for their parade.
Around 60 protesters were detained and the hospital said that of the 20 policemen injured one was seriously hurt.
No information on injured protesters was immediately available.
The march was held amid tight security as more than 2,000 officers sealed off central Podgorica to keep opponents out. A police helicopter kept a constant presence during the event.
Only participants of the march and people with special accreditation were authorised to enter the city centre.
Fights broke out in several places outside the perimeter set up by security forces, windows of cafes and shops were smashed, and rubbish bins were overturned in the streets.
However, police successfully fought back repeated attempts by protesters to approach or attack the marchers.
Sexual minorities still face discrimination in the tiny former Yugoslav republic of 650,000 inhabitants, which is seeking to join the European Union.
Surveys show 70 percent of Montenegrins, who are mainly Christian Orthodox, still consider homosexuality an illness, while 80 percent believe it should be kept private.
"As of today the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community is no longer invisible in Montenegro, but we will continue the fight for our rights," organiser Danijel Kalezic told marchers who waved rainbow flags and carried banners demanding "equal rights for everyone".
The Montenegrin government backed the event and the Minister for Human and Minority Rights Suad Numanovic was in attendance.
After the march, police evacuated participants towards a secure location, and by late afternoon calm had returned.
Interior Minister Rasko Konjevic thanked locals for their cooperation and patience.
"Podgorica citizens showed a high level of tolerance towards the participants of the march and proved that they accept diversity," he said in a statement.
Montenegro's first ever Gay Pride march was held in the coastal town of Budva in July, and was also marred by violence.
In Montenegro, as in most Balkan states, gays and lesbians live in fear of hate crimes, claiming they do not trust the authorities to protect their rights.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Twenty police officers were injured on Sunday in clashes with hundreds of stone-throwing protesters opposed to the first Gay Pride march held in Montenegro's capital, a hospital said.
Police used tear gas and clubs to stop protesters throwing stones and firecrackers from getting near the marchers who had been given an official green light for their parade.
Around 60 protesters were detained and the hospital said that of the 20 policemen injured one was seriously hurt.
No information on injured protesters was immediately available.
The march was held amid tight security as more than 2,000 officers sealed off central Podgorica to keep opponents out. A police helicopter kept a constant presence during the event.
Only participants of the march and people with special accreditation were authorised to enter the city centre.
Fights broke out in several places outside the perimeter set up by security forces, windows of cafes and shops were smashed, and rubbish bins were overturned in the streets.
However, police successfully fought back repeated attempts by protesters to approach or attack the marchers.
Sexual minorities still face discrimination in the tiny former Yugoslav republic of 650,000 inhabitants, which is seeking to join the European Union.
Surveys show 70 percent of Montenegrins, who are mainly Christian Orthodox, still consider homosexuality an illness, while 80 percent believe it should be kept private.
"As of today the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community is no longer invisible in Montenegro, but we will continue the fight for our rights," organiser Danijel Kalezic told marchers who waved rainbow flags and carried banners demanding "equal rights for everyone".
The Montenegrin government backed the event and the Minister for Human and Minority Rights Suad Numanovic was in attendance.
After the march, police evacuated participants towards a secure location, and by late afternoon calm had returned.
Interior Minister Rasko Konjevic thanked locals for their cooperation and patience.
"Podgorica citizens showed a high level of tolerance towards the participants of the march and proved that they accept diversity," he said in a statement.
Montenegro's first ever Gay Pride march was held in the coastal town of Budva in July, and was also marred by violence.
In Montenegro, as in most Balkan states, gays and lesbians live in fear of hate crimes, claiming they do not trust the authorities to protect their rights.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
NJ Senator-elect Cory Booker: Our generation ‘has no right to indulge in cynicism’ | The Raw Story
NJ Senator-elect Cory Booker: Our generation ‘has no right to indulge in cynicism’ | The Raw Story
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
GWEN IFILL: Now more on New Jersey's new senator-elect.
When he is sworn in, probably later this month, Cory Booker will be only the fourth African-American elected to the U.S. Senate. But he brings his own celebrity with him, including as the subject of an Oscar-nominated documentary in 2005, "Street Fight."
I spoke with him a short time ago.
Mayor Booker, congratulations on your election last night.
CORY BOOKER, D-N.J. Senator-elect: Thank you very much. I'm grateful. I'm grateful to have a chance to be on with you.
GWEN IFILL: You know, you're a big guy on Twitter. Everybody knows you do a lot of communicating with people that way, and one of the questions I posed yesterday to you on Twitter was, why does he want to come to Washington in the middle of all this?
CORY BOOKER: Well, you have got a lot of people in my world excited that you tweeted at me.
And, look, I have been a mayor who has been trying to push a city forward with a lot of great people from all sides of the aisle, and we just faced a lot of headwinds because of some of the things that often seem very obvious that Washington isn't doing to help out.
So take, for example, gun violence in my city. The majority of guns that we recover don't even come from New Jersey. They come from criminal gun runners who are not law-abiding citizens who should have a Second Amendment right. They come from criminals who can walk into secondary markets and buy weapons. And having commonsense background checks that 90 percent of Americans agree on makes sense, but we're not getting it done.
And so on a number of issues, from kids that go through my colleges and get degrees and things that can barely spell, but as soon as we educate them and use our taxpayer dollars to do that, and they graduate, they're ready to start businesses and add to our economy, we tell them they can't stay here, and we end up pushing them out of our country because they can't get a H-1B visa.
I can go through dozens and dozens of issues that would make New Jersey stronger, more economically competitive and safer. But we're just not getting it done in Washington right now, so I want to be a part of what I hope will be people coming together to get work done for the people of New Jersey and the nation.
GWEN IFILL: You just named two issues, gun control and immigration, which don't seem to be going anywhere, even in the Democratically controlled Senate. Why do you think your presence there would change that?
CORY BOOKER: Well, look, I think you and I both know that one senator, especially now the 100th in seniority, won't necessarily walk down there and everybody will be spitting sunshine and rainbows.
I'm very knowledgeable of the challenges before me. And I also go there with the right attitude. I have got to really I work hard and humbly and learn as much as I can and find creative ways to join with others to make a difference. So, I promised the people of New Jersey I was going to work hard and find creative ways to move the ball forward, and that's what I intend to do.
I know we can do better. I know America can. And I know this current state of sort of brinksmanship, zero sum game politics is not working for either party. It's not working for America, and I'm hoping that I can join with other people that want to go a different way. And I'm confident that American history is a testimony to the achievement of the impossible, and, in Newark, I come from a hard city where people said we couldn't make a difference, couldn't make a change, couldn't reverse trends like our population declining, our city tax base declining, but we have reversed those trends now.
We have done what others said couldn't be done, and I'm ready to take that to another level.
GWEN IFILL: There are a couple of different examples of what a new senator in Washington can do that you could follow, especially senators with reputations that precede them, like yours. Hillary Clinton came to Washington. She was on the backbench. She kept her head low. Ted Cruz came to Washington and he obviously didn't keep his head low, as we saw in the last several weeks.
Which example would you try to follow?
CORY BOOKER: You know, neither. I want to be myself. I want to be as authentic as possible. And that means doing like Hillary Clinton, having a humble heart, and focusing on getting work done, but also making sure I'm staying true to myself in the way that I have found the best way to get things done.
And so, in Newark, we were very tactical. You know, my first year in office, I think I spent most nights in a police car until 2:00, 3:00, 4:00 in the morning, working on crime issues, up in the morning, greeting people at schools, trying to give heart to people in our city.
But, at the same time, sometimes, we found it necessary to elevate Newark's profile, to bring attention to our city, so we can draw investment. I don't know what the strategy will be in Washington. The reality is, is, I have got to go down there, as my mentor, as people like Bill Bradley have told me to do, get to know your colleagues on both sides of the aisle, recognize that they, too, beat with the same heart, and the same type of blood.
And learn procedure of the place, because it does have its own rules. And then become a master of a lot of issues, a number of issues that you can really make your own and drive the ball forward. And then in every way possible, be a scraper. Try to find ways to score points. Hit singles and doubles for the people you swore an oath to represent.
GWEN IFILL: Last night during your acceptance speech, you said that democracy is not a spectator sport. What do you say to people who are alienated by the whole process at this point?
CORY BOOKER: Well, we cannot afford to surrender to cynicism.
I mean, think about the frustrating times of our past where many people should have thrown up their arms, when civil rights legislation kept failing, as lynching in America kept getting worse, where women were denied again and again the right to equal suffrage. You can go through our history, and there's so many times when there was justifiable reasons, even more so than now, for great criticism and frustration.
Our generation who stares at this incredible history of working through frustration to great breakthroughs has no right to indulge in cynicism. We don't. What we have is an obligation to keep working at it, to keep fighting, to never give up. And so Washington has to work for America. Our nation was founded with a bunch of founding legislators who joined together to move our country out of the blocks and get us started and every generation since then has found a way to advance the ball down the field.
And so I have never been one who indulges even cynical folks or that kind of negativity. I want to find ways to really find ways to create uncommon coalitions for uncommon results. And I know, I'm confident, I have faith that we can get some pretty remarkable things done in this country, that we're still a nation where impossible dreams can be made real.
GWEN IFILL: Which is more important to you, that you are the fourth elected African-American to the U.S. Senate in modern times, or that you are the 21st mayor to go straight to the U.S. Senate?
CORY BOOKER: I think those are both really important questions. The first, being the fourth African-American, speaks a lot to our nation and really to my state. That that wasn't a central feature in this campaign, even, shows a lot of the evolution of our state.
The latter to me is very important, because when I watch the Senate, and, again, from a distance, and I don't want to say they know all about that body or much about the internal workings, but when I step back, I often see issues that face urban spaces in America, that face urban issues. They're just not being addressed, and a lack of urgency that I have had to live with as a mayor every single day that doesn't seem to be made manifest.
And so I want to join with other legislators in that body who believe, like I do, that 85 percent of Americans live in cities or in their suburbs and that we have got -- in fact, the Brookings Institution now rightfully is talking about that if you want to create a robust economy, where the majority of our GDP is driven is in our cities, you have got to have an urban vision for America.
And I want to go down there with the practical skills that I have learned and add to that understanding and that sense of urgency, and the reality that in America right now, there are large swathes of our country who are less and less seeing the kind of social mobility that my parents saw, who are more and more finding themselves in traps economically that they can't escape because they don't have access to the basics. And that's a threat to our economy.
GWEN IFILL: Newark Mayor Cory Booker, senator-elect from New Jersey, congratulations, and thank you for joining us.
CORY BOOKER: Thank you very much, Gwen. It's great to be on with you and talk with you yet again.
North Carolina Pastor Advocates Punching Gay Acting Children | Advocate.com
North Carolina Pastor Advocates Punching Gay Acting Children | Advocate.com
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The estimates of the poor and uninsured population are from the Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey as provided by the University of Minnesota Population Center. Poverty rates are based on the federal poverty guidelines and family definitions used in determining Medicaid eligibility and provided by the State Health Access Data Assistance Center. Immigration status was estimated based on a methodology devised by the Pew Hispanic Center.
The status of state Medicaid expansion plans is based on a report by the federal government's Center for Medicaid<embed src='http://www.goodasyou.org/player.swf' height='340' width='480' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' flashvars="&file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodasyou.org%2Fmarriagesundayharris3.mp3&image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodasyou.org%2Fmarriagesundayharris3.png&plugins=viral-2d"/>
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The estimates of the poor and uninsured population are from the Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey as provided by the University of Minnesota Population Center. Poverty rates are based on the federal poverty guidelines and family definitions used in determining Medicaid eligibility and provided by the State Health Access Data Assistance Center. Immigration status was estimated based on a methodology devised by the Pew Hispanic Center.
The status of state Medicaid expansion plans is based on a report by the federal government's Center for Medicaid<embed src='http://www.goodasyou.org/player.swf' height='340' width='480' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' flashvars="&file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodasyou.org%2Fmarriagesundayharris3.mp3&image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodasyou.org%2Fmarriagesundayharris3.png&plugins=viral-2d"/>
Friday, October 18, 2013
Chris Hedges: The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Chris Hedges: The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
There is a desire felt by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, radically diminish the role of government to create a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and force a recalcitrant world to bend to the will of an imperial and “Christian” America. Its public face is on display in the House of Representatives. This ideology, which is the driving force behind the shutdown of the government, calls for the eradication of social “deviants,” beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country. Once these “deviants” are removed, other “deviants,” including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible—will also be ruthlessly repressed. The “deviant” government bureaucrats, the “deviant” media, the “deviant” schools and the “deviant” churches, all agents of Satan, will be crushed or radically reformed. The rights of these “deviants” will be annulled. “Christian values” and “family values” will, in the new state, be propagated by all institutions. Education and social welfare will be handed over to the church. Facts and self-criticism will be replaced with relentless indoctrination.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz—whose father is Rafael Cruz, a rabid right-wing Christian preacher and the director of the Purifying Fire International ministry—and legions of the senator’s wealthy supporters, some of whom orchestrated the shutdown, are rooted in a radical Christian ideology known as Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism. This ideology calls on anointed “Christian” leaders to take over the state and make the goals and laws of the nation “biblical.” It seeks to reduce government to organizing little more than defense, internal security and the protection of property rights. It fuses with the Christian religion the iconography and language of American imperialism and nationalism, along with the cruelest aspects of corporate capitalism. The intellectual and moral hollowness of the ideology, its flagrant distortion and misuse of the Bible, the contradictions that abound within it—its leaders champion small government and a large military, as if the military is not part of government—and its laughable pseudoscience are impervious to reason and fact. And that is why the movement is dangerous.
The cult of masculinity, as in all fascist movements, pervades the ideology of the Christian right. The movement uses religion to sanctify military and heroic “virtues,” glorify blind obedience and order over reason and conscience, and pander to the euphoria of collective emotions. Feminism and homosexuality, believers are told, have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian right, is a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Antichrist, attacking hypocrites and ultimately slaying nonbelievers. This cult of masculinity, with its glorification of violence, is appealing to the powerless. It stokes the anger of many Americans, mostly white and economically disadvantaged, and encourages them to lash back at those who, they are told, seek to destroy them. The paranoia about the outside world is fostered by bizarre conspiracy theories, many of which are prominent in the rhetoric of those leading the government shutdown. Believers, especially now, are called to a perpetual state of war with the “secular humanist” state. The march, they believe, is irreversible. Global war, even nuclear war, is the joyful harbinger of the Second Coming. And leading the avenging armies is an angry, violent Messiah who dooms billions of apostates to death.
Dominionists believe they are engaged in an epic battle against the forces of Satan. They live in a binary world of black and white. They feel they are victims, surrounded by sinister groups bent on their destruction. They have anointed themselves as agents of God who alone know God’s will. They sanctify their rage. This rage lies at the center of the ideology. It leaves them sputtering inanities about Barack Obama, his corporate-sponsored health care reform bill, his alleged mandated suicide counseling or “death panels” for seniors under the bill, his supposed secret alliance with radical Muslims, and “creeping socialism.” They see the government bureaucracy as being controlled by “secular humanists” who want to destroy the family and make war against the purity of their belief system. They seek total cultural and political domination.
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
There is a desire felt by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, radically diminish the role of government to create a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and force a recalcitrant world to bend to the will of an imperial and “Christian” America. Its public face is on display in the House of Representatives. This ideology, which is the driving force behind the shutdown of the government, calls for the eradication of social “deviants,” beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country. Once these “deviants” are removed, other “deviants,” including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible—will also be ruthlessly repressed. The “deviant” government bureaucrats, the “deviant” media, the “deviant” schools and the “deviant” churches, all agents of Satan, will be crushed or radically reformed. The rights of these “deviants” will be annulled. “Christian values” and “family values” will, in the new state, be propagated by all institutions. Education and social welfare will be handed over to the church. Facts and self-criticism will be replaced with relentless indoctrination.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz—whose father is Rafael Cruz, a rabid right-wing Christian preacher and the director of the Purifying Fire International ministry—and legions of the senator’s wealthy supporters, some of whom orchestrated the shutdown, are rooted in a radical Christian ideology known as Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism. This ideology calls on anointed “Christian” leaders to take over the state and make the goals and laws of the nation “biblical.” It seeks to reduce government to organizing little more than defense, internal security and the protection of property rights. It fuses with the Christian religion the iconography and language of American imperialism and nationalism, along with the cruelest aspects of corporate capitalism. The intellectual and moral hollowness of the ideology, its flagrant distortion and misuse of the Bible, the contradictions that abound within it—its leaders champion small government and a large military, as if the military is not part of government—and its laughable pseudoscience are impervious to reason and fact. And that is why the movement is dangerous.
The cult of masculinity, as in all fascist movements, pervades the ideology of the Christian right. The movement uses religion to sanctify military and heroic “virtues,” glorify blind obedience and order over reason and conscience, and pander to the euphoria of collective emotions. Feminism and homosexuality, believers are told, have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian right, is a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Antichrist, attacking hypocrites and ultimately slaying nonbelievers. This cult of masculinity, with its glorification of violence, is appealing to the powerless. It stokes the anger of many Americans, mostly white and economically disadvantaged, and encourages them to lash back at those who, they are told, seek to destroy them. The paranoia about the outside world is fostered by bizarre conspiracy theories, many of which are prominent in the rhetoric of those leading the government shutdown. Believers, especially now, are called to a perpetual state of war with the “secular humanist” state. The march, they believe, is irreversible. Global war, even nuclear war, is the joyful harbinger of the Second Coming. And leading the avenging armies is an angry, violent Messiah who dooms billions of apostates to death.
Dominionists believe they are engaged in an epic battle against the forces of Satan. They live in a binary world of black and white. They feel they are victims, surrounded by sinister groups bent on their destruction. They have anointed themselves as agents of God who alone know God’s will. They sanctify their rage. This rage lies at the center of the ideology. It leaves them sputtering inanities about Barack Obama, his corporate-sponsored health care reform bill, his alleged mandated suicide counseling or “death panels” for seniors under the bill, his supposed secret alliance with radical Muslims, and “creeping socialism.” They see the government bureaucracy as being controlled by “secular humanists” who want to destroy the family and make war against the purity of their belief system. They seek total cultural and political domination.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Boehner's jam: Caucus loves but won't follow him - Yahoo News
Boehner's jam: Caucus loves but won't follow him - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Congress' debt-and-spending breakthrough crystalized a political contradiction.
House Republicans refuse to let their supposed leader, Speaker John Boehner, steer them toward big policy decisions, leaving him to endure repeated public embarrassments. Yet they rally around Boehner as much as ever, affirming his hold on the speakership Wednesday even as they choked down a Democratic-crafted bill to reopen the government, lift the debt ceiling and give Republicans only a few small concessions.
"He's done a good job keeping us together," said Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C.
"I think his stock has risen tremendously, and certainly he has great security as our leader and our speaker," said Rep. John Fleming, R-La.
Imagine the praise from Republicans who voted in favor of the bill, which Boehner described as the best deal he could get under the constraints his colleagues handed him. Hudson and Fleming were among the 144 House Republicans who voted "no," forcing their leader once again to pass a high-profile measure that most GOP members opposed. Eighty-seven Republicans voted for it, joining all the Democrats in the chamber.
Hudson and Fleming also are among the House's dozens of tea party-backed Republicans, whose disdain of compromise has vastly complicated the speaker's job. Even before Wednesday, House Republicans' habit of praising but not heeding Boehner reflected the tea party's devotion to putting principle above deal-making.
Boehner is a seasoned legislator. He constantly seeks 218 votes needed to pass House bills and scraps for the best bargains he can cut with Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama.
Ho-hum, say many rank-and-file Republicans. While polls show Americans chiefly blame Republicans for the debt-and-shutdown gridlock — and GOP Sen. John McCain declared "we have lost this battle" — many of them seemed satisfied with the stand they made. That philosophy surely would have baffled many predecessors in Congress.
"The dynamics got much better," Fleming said, when Boehner "quit going to the White House to negotiate and he began to listen to us, to what we thought would work." Fleming called the debt and spending outcome an acceptable "stalemate." Democrats weren't able to reduce the "sequester" spending cuts they oppose, he said, and Republicans failed to delay or defund Obama's health care overhaul.
Republicans "lost the battle, but we're going to win the war," Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said of plans to keep attacking "Obamacare." In January, Huelskamp voted to dump Boehner as speaker. But he joined in Wednesday's standing ovation for Boehner in a closed-door caucus gathering.
"This is probably the best example of him following the 200 folks in our caucus who are conservative and are worried about Obamacare," Huelskamp said after the meeting.
Boehner said in a subdued statement, "Our drive to stop the train wreck that is the president's health care law will continue."
Boehner lost control of the debt-and-shutdown debate weeks ago, when tea party-backed Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas launched a national drive to close much of the government if Democrats didn't agree to "defund Obamacare."
Senior Republicans called the mission hopeless. Boehner urged his colleagues to focus on the debt ceiling instead. The threat of government default, he said, would give them greater leverage to demand spending cuts from Democrats.
It's the same advice Boehner gave in January at a widely praised House GOP retreat in Williamsburg, Va. Republicans, he said then, must decide "where's the ground that we fight on? Where's the ground that we retreat on?"
Whatever progress Boehner made in Virginia was apparently lost this month, when scores of House Republicans joined Cruz's ultimately doomed crusade.
GOP lawmakers would have fared better "had we let the speaker pick the battlefield and the battle," said Republican strategist Mike McKenna. He said Boehner and his team did the best they could "with the mess that Ted Cruz's dead-end strategy left them." He said House Republicans appreciate that Boehner didn't say, "I told you so."
Boehner confirmed his coziness with those why defy him by appointing three high-profile budget conferees who voted against the debt-funding bill. They include former vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who will lead House budget talks with the Senate in the coming weeks. A fourth GOP conferee, Boehner ally Tom Cole of Oklahoma, backed the compromise debt-funding bill.
With the government now funded through mid-January, and the debt ceiling lifted a few weeks beyond that, some lawmakers say Congress is headed toward renewed partisan brinksmanship this winter.
"All this does is delay this fight four months," said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala.
Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said Republicans erred by focusing on the government funding bill instead of the debt. But he doesn't blame Boehner.
"We're a body of independent contractors, each with his own constituency," Kingston said. Boehner, he said, "is going to be OK. You know, it's a pretty tough job."
Previous House speakers found that to be true, even when their caucuses followed their advice
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Congress' debt-and-spending breakthrough crystalized a political contradiction.
House Republicans refuse to let their supposed leader, Speaker John Boehner, steer them toward big policy decisions, leaving him to endure repeated public embarrassments. Yet they rally around Boehner as much as ever, affirming his hold on the speakership Wednesday even as they choked down a Democratic-crafted bill to reopen the government, lift the debt ceiling and give Republicans only a few small concessions.
"He's done a good job keeping us together," said Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C.
"I think his stock has risen tremendously, and certainly he has great security as our leader and our speaker," said Rep. John Fleming, R-La.
Imagine the praise from Republicans who voted in favor of the bill, which Boehner described as the best deal he could get under the constraints his colleagues handed him. Hudson and Fleming were among the 144 House Republicans who voted "no," forcing their leader once again to pass a high-profile measure that most GOP members opposed. Eighty-seven Republicans voted for it, joining all the Democrats in the chamber.
Hudson and Fleming also are among the House's dozens of tea party-backed Republicans, whose disdain of compromise has vastly complicated the speaker's job. Even before Wednesday, House Republicans' habit of praising but not heeding Boehner reflected the tea party's devotion to putting principle above deal-making.
Boehner is a seasoned legislator. He constantly seeks 218 votes needed to pass House bills and scraps for the best bargains he can cut with Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama.
Ho-hum, say many rank-and-file Republicans. While polls show Americans chiefly blame Republicans for the debt-and-shutdown gridlock — and GOP Sen. John McCain declared "we have lost this battle" — many of them seemed satisfied with the stand they made. That philosophy surely would have baffled many predecessors in Congress.
"The dynamics got much better," Fleming said, when Boehner "quit going to the White House to negotiate and he began to listen to us, to what we thought would work." Fleming called the debt and spending outcome an acceptable "stalemate." Democrats weren't able to reduce the "sequester" spending cuts they oppose, he said, and Republicans failed to delay or defund Obama's health care overhaul.
Republicans "lost the battle, but we're going to win the war," Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said of plans to keep attacking "Obamacare." In January, Huelskamp voted to dump Boehner as speaker. But he joined in Wednesday's standing ovation for Boehner in a closed-door caucus gathering.
"This is probably the best example of him following the 200 folks in our caucus who are conservative and are worried about Obamacare," Huelskamp said after the meeting.
Boehner said in a subdued statement, "Our drive to stop the train wreck that is the president's health care law will continue."
Boehner lost control of the debt-and-shutdown debate weeks ago, when tea party-backed Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas launched a national drive to close much of the government if Democrats didn't agree to "defund Obamacare."
Senior Republicans called the mission hopeless. Boehner urged his colleagues to focus on the debt ceiling instead. The threat of government default, he said, would give them greater leverage to demand spending cuts from Democrats.
It's the same advice Boehner gave in January at a widely praised House GOP retreat in Williamsburg, Va. Republicans, he said then, must decide "where's the ground that we fight on? Where's the ground that we retreat on?"
Whatever progress Boehner made in Virginia was apparently lost this month, when scores of House Republicans joined Cruz's ultimately doomed crusade.
GOP lawmakers would have fared better "had we let the speaker pick the battlefield and the battle," said Republican strategist Mike McKenna. He said Boehner and his team did the best they could "with the mess that Ted Cruz's dead-end strategy left them." He said House Republicans appreciate that Boehner didn't say, "I told you so."
Boehner confirmed his coziness with those why defy him by appointing three high-profile budget conferees who voted against the debt-funding bill. They include former vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who will lead House budget talks with the Senate in the coming weeks. A fourth GOP conferee, Boehner ally Tom Cole of Oklahoma, backed the compromise debt-funding bill.
With the government now funded through mid-January, and the debt ceiling lifted a few weeks beyond that, some lawmakers say Congress is headed toward renewed partisan brinksmanship this winter.
"All this does is delay this fight four months," said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala.
Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said Republicans erred by focusing on the government funding bill instead of the debt. But he doesn't blame Boehner.
"We're a body of independent contractors, each with his own constituency," Kingston said. Boehner, he said, "is going to be OK. You know, it's a pretty tough job."
Previous House speakers found that to be true, even when their caucuses followed their advice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)