Thursday, October 30, 2014

Republicans Fear Paying a Price for Attacks on Interests of African Americans | Robert Creamer

Republicans Fear Paying a Price for Attacks on Interests of African Americans | Robert Creamer

 VOTE

JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis didn't have any problem jamming through a so-called "voter ID" law that was intended to take away the voting rights of thousands of North Carolinians -- including many African Americans.

But the moment Democrats or civil rights organizations exhort African Americans to go to the polls and stand up for their right to vote -- and prevent Tillis from being elected to the U.S. Senate -- the Republicans squeal like stuck pigs.

"Oh, that's unfair, that's playing the racial card," they say. Wrong. That's being held accountable for policies that intentionally attack the interests of African Americans and millions of other ordinary voters.

With Tillis as speaker, the North Carolina legislature passed "Stand Your Ground" legislation similar to the law that allowed the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's killer in Florida. But the GOP thinks it is utterly unfair for him to be tied to the real-world consequences of his actions in government.

Community and civil rights organizations throughout the South -- and around the country -- are exhorting African American voters to go to the polls in the mid-term elections by pointing out that when African Americans don't vote they get outcomes like Ferguson, Missouri. And they are dead on. Sixty-seven percent of the city's 21,000 residents are black, but only 12 percent of the voters in the last municipal election were black. The result: a city council with only one African American member and a police force of 53 officers -- of which only three are black.

There could be no better example of what African Americans get if they don't vote. Yet the Republicans think that reference to Ferguson is "inflammatory."

It's not the least bit "inflammatory." It simply means that the African American community intends to stand up for itself in the political process.

It is tribute to the fact that the leaders of African American organizations realize that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu -- and that goes for all of us.

Democrats and everyday Americans of all backgrounds should take a lesson from the way African American leaders are standing up for President Obama. They are pointing out in radio spots and mailings that while it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the president in a democratic society; many of his Republican and right-wing
critics have crossed the line to disrespect. They are telling African American voters: "It's up to us to have the president's back -- vote."

Republicans don't like to hear that. In fact, the corporate CEOs and Wall Street billionaires who control the Republican Party -- in coalition with groups of tea party extremists -- don't want most ordinary Americans to wake up and go the polls.

That doesn't just go for African Americans. They are hoping that Hispanics, women, working people, and young people of all sorts stay home and forget there is an election. That way they hope they can elect a Republican Senate so that if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court they can prevent President Obama from appointing a justice that is not in Wall Street's back pocket.

They want a Senate that can work with the tea party-controlled House to hold the president and the country hostage unless they are allowed to slash tax rates for big business, eliminate the Medicare guarantee, cut Social Security benefits, gut the regulation of Wall Street, dramatically restrict women's right to choose and limit access to contraception. And none of that is an exaggeration. Those are the positions they put right on their campaign websites.

If you are reading this article and haven't voted, make a plan right now for how you plan to vote before Tuesday. In most states you can vote by mail, vote early at many locations or -- of course -- go to your precinct on Tuesday and cast your ballot.

Figure out now what time you plan to vote and how you plan to get to the polls or the early vote location. Don't put it off.

Many critical elections in state after state are on a knife's edge -- they will be decided by a handful of voters.

Tens of thousands of Americans have given their lives -- on battlefields far away and in struggles for voting rights here at home -- so that every single American can have the right to have a say in determining our country's leaders.

If you think that it doesn't matter -- or that it won't affect you, or that your vote won't influence the outcome -- you are simply wrong.

In the end the big issues that completely shape our individual lives and the future of our society are decided by who votes.

Will there be job opportunities for our kids? Will a small group of Wall Street speculators be allowed to sink our economy once again like they did in 2008? Will you have the right to control your own reproductive decisions? Will your monthly Social Security check be cut? Will we leave our kids a planet that is so filled with carbon pollution that we can't grow enough food or our cities are regularly swamped by monster storms like Hurricane Sandy? Will ordinary people finally get wage increases from our growing economy or will all of the growth continue to be siphoned off by the wealthiest one percent?

If you don't plan to vote, are you really willing to allow the billionaires and CEOs to get what they want? Are you willing to let them steal your family's security while we sleep through the election?

Don't let it happen. Get up off the couch and go vote. Better still, call your neighbors, your sons and daughters. Tell your spouse to vote. Volunteer with a campaign to get other people out to vote -- it works.

The plain fact is that if we don't vote it won't just be some politician who loses an election. If we don't vote, we lose.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Janet Napolitano backs immigration executive action - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

Janet Napolitano backs immigration executive action - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

 Janet Napolitano is pictured. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Ex-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — who oversaw a sweeping directive that gave hundreds of thousands of young immigrants a reprieve from deportations — says she is backing President Barack Obama’s planned executive action on immigration.

“If Congress refuses to act and perform its duties, then I think it’s appropriate for the executive to step in and use his authorities based on law … to take action in the immigration arena,’’ Napolitano said in an interview with The Washington Post published Monday.

Latest on POLITICO
The comments came in advance of a speech that Napolitano will deliver later Monday at the University of Georgia School of Law. The Post reported that the speech, called “Anatomy of a Legal Decision,” will dissect the internal debate over the federal 2012 directive, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that halted deportations of young undocumented immigrants and gave them work permits.

“It just seemed to me that we needed to do something for this group of young people,” Napolitano, now the president of the University of California system, told the paper. “They were brought here as kids, not of their own volition. They really are kind of the worst victims of the lack of immigration reform.”

The comments are particularly notable given Napolitano’s role in implementing DACA — which is widely expected to be a model for the executive action promised by Obama later this year — and also because of her mixed history with immigration advocates during her tenure at the Department of Homeland Security.

The former Arizona governor came under criticism for an administration enforcement policy that led to record levels of deportations of immigrants without legal status. At the same time, Napolitano has drawn attacks from groups and lawmakers that want tougher immigration enforcement.

After comprehensive immigration reform died a slow death in Washington this year, Obama promised to take executive action to ease deportations and unilaterally make other tweaks in the nation’s immigration system.

But Obama said last month that he would punt that decision until after the November midterms, as Senate Democrats grew increasingly nervous about potential political blowback from any sweeping order.

Napolitano’s successor, Jeh Johnson, is leading the administration’s review of its immigration enforcement policies and preparing recommendations for Obama on what kinds of executive actions the president can take.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/janet-napolitano-immigration-112222.html#ixzz3HMxkhUJx

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Justice Ginsburg Revises Texas Voter ID Dissent, Then Announces It : It's All Politics : NPR

Justice Ginsburg Revises Texas Voter ID Dissent, Then Announces It : It's All Politics : NPR
In her revised dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg clarified that photo ID cards issued by the Veterans' Affairs are "an acceptable form of photo identification for voting in Texas."













JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Once again the U.S. Supreme Court is correcting its own record, but Wednesday marks the first time that the court has called attention to its own mistake with a public announcement. And it was the erring justice herself, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked the court's public information office to announce the error.

Last Friday Ginsburg pulled an all-nighter to write a dissent from the court's decision to allow the Texas voter ID law to go into effect while the case is on appeal. The dissent, released Saturday at 5 a.m. and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, listed a variety of photo ID forms not accepted for purposes of voting under the Texas law. Among those listed in the Ginsburg dissent as unacceptable was a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs photo ID.

Three days after the opinion was released, professor Richard Hasen of the University of California, Irvine said on his election law blog that the state does in fact accept the Veterans Affairs IDs. Upon confirmation of that fact by the Texas secretary of state's office, Ginsburg amended her opinion.

Not surprising. What was surprising is that, according to Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg, Justice Ginsburg instructed the press office to announce that the opinion had "contained an error" and that it was being corrected.

On Wednesday, the court announced the mistake and the correction.

Errors of this sort are not exactly rare. In this case, it appears that Ginsburg may have gotten the Wisconsin and Texas voter ID provisions, both before the court, mixed up.

Until the era of the blogosphere, however, this sort of mistake was the stuff of academic gossip. Now it is the stuff of academic blogs, which sometimes get picked up in the popular press. A more embarrassing mistake by Justice Antonin Scalia was caught by Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus last spring; the error was quickly fixed, but it was not announced. Nor was another error made and corrected by Justice Kagan.

Ginsburg is the first justice to call the public's attention to her own mistake.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Even an Ozarks coroner gets surplus military guns - Yahoo News

Even an Ozarks coroner gets surplus military guns - Yahoo News















JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Doug Wortham used a Defense Department giveaway program for law enforcement to stock his office with an assault rifle, a handgun and a Humvee — even though the people in his custody are in no condition to put up a fight.

They're dead. Wortham is the Sharp County, Arkansas, coroner. He says the Humvee helps him navigate the rugged terrain of the Ozarks foothills, but he struggled to explain why he needs the surplus military weapons he acquired more than two years ago.

"I just wanted to protect myself," he said.

His office isn't the only government agency with limited policing powers and a questionable need for high-powered weaponry to take advantage of the program. While most of the surplus weapons go to municipal police departments and county sheriffs, an Associated Press review shows that a diverse array of other state and local agencies also have been scooping up guns and other tactical equipment no longer needed by the military.

Military-grade weapons have gone to government agencies that enforce gaming laws at Kansas tribal casinos and weigh 18-wheelers in Mississippi, to the Wyoming Livestock Board and the Cumberland County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Other military surplus items have been bestowed on an animal control department in Cullman County, Alabama; a harbormaster in Dartmouth, Massachusetts; and the California Assembly's Sergeant-at-Arms.

The Pentagon's 1033 Program has been controversial; the White House ordered a review of it and similar programs in August after a deadly police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, led to clashes between protesters and officers decked out in combat gear.

Under the 1033 Program, thousands of law-enforcement agencies have acquired hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and other military castoffs. Among them were dozens of fire departments, district attorneys, prisons, parks departments and wildlife agencies that were eligible to join the program because they have officers or investigators with arrest powers.

Guns, armored vehicles and aircraft only account for a fraction of the equipment up for grabs. Several agencies surveyed by the AP said they never asked for any weapons and only enrolled in the program to get free office equipment and other common items that wouldn't be deployed on any battlefield.

The agencies receiving firearms are difficult to pinpoint because the federal agency overseeing the program releases only county-level data on weapons transfers, citing security concerns. But some participating agencies — or state officials who coordinate the program — were willing to disclose their inventories.

Wortham was qualified to enroll in the 1033 Program because Arkansas coroners have arrest powers. Elected to his first term as coroner in 2010, he obtained a .45-caliber pistol and an M-16 rifle in 2012 after getting a Humvee the previous year. He said he is trying to arrange for a local police department to take the two weapons.

State program officials said they couldn't find Wortham's written justification for requesting the weapons. An official from the federal office that oversees the program approved both transactions.

"What does a coroner need a big gun for?" asked Marshall County, Illinois, coroner Davey Lenz, who used the program to obtain body bags. "I have never carried a weapon in my 20 years on the job."

Steve Melo, the harbormaster in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, said he hasn't received any weapons but acquired a Humvee for driving in marshy areas and a night-vision scope to spot boaters in the dark. The Humvee was stripped of weapon holders and the scope isn't attached to a gun, he said.

"We have looked at it as saving this town big money," he said. "We're not out there in tanks. We're not dressing in battle uniform-type stuff."

The Arkansas Tobacco Control agency obtained five 12-gauge shotguns for its agents, who help regulate tobacco retailers and wholesalers.

"A lot of the convenience store owners who are involved in (tobacco) smuggling are also on the terrorist watch list, have connections to organized crime, etc.," said Roland Darrow, an agency attorney. Darrow said his agency's law-enforcement officers have arrested at least one person whose name was on Homeland Security's terrorist watch list, but he declined to provide details, saying the information was classified.

The Wyoming Livestock Board's law-enforcement unit issues Glock-made handguns to its officers, who investigate cattle thefts and other industry-related crimes. But the board also obtained seven .45-caliber handguns from the military surplus program roughly three years ago.

"I guess primarily because I can't stand Glocks," said senior investigator Kim Clark.

Similarly, Kansas State Gaming Agency enforcement director Jamie Nickoley said its 10 surplus M-16 rifles are "just another tool" for its law-enforcement agents, who also have agency-issued handguns.

The Mississippi Department of Transportation, which has an office that enforces laws governing commercial vehicles, obtained seven M-14 rifles through the program.

"We don't actually shoot them or anything. They're basically used as props during our ceremonies," said department spokesman Kenny Foote.

The 1033 Program isn't the only source of surplus property for law-enforcement agencies. They also can purchase equipment at discounted prices through the separate 1122 Program, which is overseen by the Army. State and local government agencies of all stripes can acquire other types of non-military surplus property through a program overseen by the U.S. General Services Administration.

Wortham's office also obtained property through the GSA-run program but lost its privileges last year after state officials learned of concerns about some of its acquisitions, including a kayak, according to Tina Owens, deputy director of the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management.

"Why would a coroner's office need a kayak?" Owens asked.

Owens' department referred the matter last year to the GSA inspector general's office, which is investigating. Neither agency would elaborate.

Wortham, who is running for re-election and recently defeated a primary challenger who stars on a reality TV show about the Ozarks, denies any wrongdoing.

"This has been a political thing from the word go," he said.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Joe Biden Dings Leon Panetta For 'Inappropriate' Criticisms Of Obama's Syria Strategy

Joe Biden Dings Leon Panetta For 'Inappropriate' Criticisms Of Obama's Syria Strategy

 JOE BIDEN

JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Vice President Joe Biden took a shot at former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday night for his 'inappropriate" criticisms in a new book of President Barack Obama's strategy in Syria.

During remarks at the Harvard Institute of Politics, an audience member asked Biden if he thinks the United States should have acted sooner to arm Syrian moderates to counter Syrian President Bashar Assad, as well as to combat Islamic State militants. Biden said no, explaining that the United States has been engaged in a long process to identify who those moderates are.

"We Americans think, in every country in transition, there's a Thomas Jefferson hiding behind some rock or a James Madison beyond one sand dune," he said. "The fact of the matter is, the ability to identify a moderate middle in Syria was, there was no moderate middle, because the moderate middle are made up of shopkeepers, not soldiers."

The vice president then took aim at Panetta, without naming him, for his harsh words on Obama's Syria strategy in his forthcoming book, Worthy Fights. In it, Panetta, who also served as CIA chief under Obama, slams the president for "hesitation and half steps" in his approach to stemming Syrian violence.

"I’m finding that former administration officials, as soon as they leave, write books, which I think is inappropriate. But any rate," Biden said, trailing off as a few in the audience laughed. "No, I’m serious. I do think it's inappropriate. At least give the guy a chance to get out of office."














Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Court Strikes Down GOP-Backed Voting Restrictions In North Carolina

Court Strikes Down GOP-Backed Voting Restrictions In North Carolina

 NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR

JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered a lower court to block two new voting restrictions in North Carolina, saying there was "no doubt" the measures would disenfranchise minorities.

North Carolina will now be required to reinstate same-day voter registration, as well as allow voters to cast ballots even if they show up to vote in the wrong precinct.

In a two-to-one ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that "whether the number is thirty or thirty-thousand, surely some North Carolina minority voters will be disproportionately adversely affected in the upcoming election" and that it was important to act now, since "there could be no do-over and no redress" once the election was over.

The appeals court ruled that the lower court "failed to adequately consider North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination" and said the new law eliminated "voting mechanisms successful in fostering minority participation."

"The injury to these voters is real and completely irreparable if nothing is done to enjoin this law," the ruling said.

North Carolina began considering new voting restrictions last June, the day after the Supreme Court gutted a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protected minority voters in certain states with a history of discrimination. Gov. Pat McCrory (R) ultimately signed House Bill 589 into law in August 2013.
The law eliminated a number of measures intended to protect would-be voters from being disenfranchised and required them to show photo identification at the polls.

The Justice Department joined civil rights groups in suing over the law a month later.

"The election laws in North Carolina prior to House Bill 589’s enactment encouraged participation by qualified voters," the appeals court ruled Wednesday. "But the challenged House Bill 589 provisions stripped them away. The public interest thus weighs heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor."

The court did, however, affirm the lower court's decision to allow North Carolina to reduce the number of early-voting days, expand the basis for voter challenges and enact several other new restrictions.

"With respect to these provisions, we conclude that, although Plaintiffs may ultimately succeed at trial, they have not met their burden of satisfying all elements necessary for a preliminary injunction," the court ruled.