Obama is no profile in courage: James Robbins

President Obama visited American University today to deliver what was billed as one of the most important speeches of his presidency. The topic was the proposed nuclear deal with Iran that is currently under consideration by the Congress. The venue was significant; Obama invoked history, namely President John F. Kennedy’s June 10, 1963 commencement speech in which he announced that the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom would begin formal negotiations seeking a limited nuclear test ban. But Kennedy’s diplomatic success 52 years ago only underscores Obama’s poor showing in selling his nuclear deal with Iran.

Kennedy sought a ban on atmospheric nuclear testing, which both sides had undertaken extensively and which created nuclear fallout problems. He negotiated the test ban as a formal treaty, and presented it to the Senate for ratification as the Constitution dictates. It sailed through in September 1963 by a vote of 80 to 19 with strong bipartisan support. By contrast, the Obama administration never sought to do the hard work of negotiating and ratifying a formal treaty with Iran, and the proposed pact faces strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. President Obama invoked the later SALT agreements with the Soviet Union, but his proposed Iran deal has lowerpublic approval than the SALT II treaty did before Jimmy Carter withdrew it from the Senate in 1980.(

President Kennedy's speech was publicly addressing Soviet strongman Nikita Khrushchev (who notably said “We will bury you”) in an attempt to get him to the negotiating table. President Obama's speech today targeted a small group of undecided members of his own political party who could mean the difference between his deal being rejected with a veto proof majority, or simply being rejected.

Kennedy was also not afraid to continue his pointed criticism of Soviet communism even while he sought détente. Two weeks after the American University address, Kennedy delivered his more famous, more combative “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech. “There are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists,” Kennedy said. “Let them come to Berlin.” Kennedy’s muscular tone prompted Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to remark during his own speech in East Berlin two days later that "one would think that the speeches were made by two different Presidents." Obama made passing reference to Iran’s Islamic regime being repressive, but it hardly amounted to the soaring indictment of communism President Kennedy made in Berlin.

Kennedy was concerned that the Soviet Union might possibly start a senseless conflict, but Obama believes that his domestic political opponents are the ones threatening to start a senseless conflict. He characterized his deal as a peace agreement, because there is “no other option” than a U.S.-initiated war — even though no American leaders are advocating an immediate attack.

Obama is manufacturing a crisis that his pact does not solve. The agreement does not address Iran’s expansionist aims, its support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program or grim human rights record. Even if the proposed deal worked, which is doubtful, it would amount to a speed bump for Iran’s nuclear program that will simultaneously reward Tehran with tens of billions of dollars to invigorate its terror networks and missile programs.

President Obama quoted Kennedy saying that “the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war.” But Obama's argument that war is the only alternative is what is creating drama. There are many better alternatives to his Iran pact that do not involve armed conflict. The stakes are much lower than they were in 1963. This is not the height of the Cold War. Iran is not the Soviet Union. And Barack Obama, is no John F. Kennedy.

James S. Robbins writes weekly for USA TODAY and is the author of The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero.

Via: USA Today

Continue Reading.....

Oklahoma: Gov. Mary Fallin: Regulations won't have immediate impact on number of quakes

OKLAHOMA CITY — Gov. Mary Fallin on Tuesday said changes in regulatory policies governing disposal wells will not have an immediate impact on the number of earthquakes in the state.

“I think it is important for the people of Oklahoma to understand that just because there is a change in regulatory policy doesn’t mean you are going to see an action next week or one month or two months or six months,” Fallin said. “It could be a year until we see a measurable difference. We are trying to figure out day by day what is the best thing to do.”

She was complimentary of actions taken by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which required some disposal well operators to reduce volume and the depth of waste-water injections. Disposal wells have been tied to the increased number of earthquakes.

Tim Baker, a staff member of the Corporation Commission, said the agency could go through the legal process to seek a moratorium on disposal wells, but it could be drawn out. The agency has had good cooperation from the industry and hopes to continue to use administrative remedies, he said.

Fallin’s comments came after a meeting of the Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity, a panel she created about a year ago that includes agency officials, members of the industry and academia.

The panel’s meetings are not required to be open to the public because it is advisory and does not make policy, Fallin said.

Fallin said crafting a response to the increased number of earthquakes requires balancing the interests of homeowners, business owners and the industry, which is responsible for a significant number of jobs in the state.

Fallin was asked what advice she would give to homeowners who are affected by earthquakes.

“I would advise Oklahomans that they should call their insurance agent and see what types of products are available,” Fallin said.

Angela Spotts, co-founder of Stop Fracking Payne County, said many insurance policies have high deductibles and cover only catastrophic damage. Spotts attended the press conference following the panel’s meeting.

Fallin was asked if the state has acted aggressively and done everything in its power to get on top of the situation, which has many residents on edge.

“We are sure trying to,” she said.

She said she believed the state has made tremendous progress in the past year.

Spotts disagreed.

“It really appears to me we are protecting the industry in this state,” Spotts said. “Their jobs are important. But my home and all the people I speak for that don’t have the courage to stand up and speak out, our lives, homes, property and well-being is every bit as important as the jobs in the oil and gas industry.

“And I sincerely don’t believe the actions have been quick enough and fast enough and protecting from one of the big ones from happening.

Via: Tulsa World

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Krauthammer on Obama's Divisive Iran Rhetoric: 'Vintage Obama, New Low'

Krauthammer slammed Obama for his divisive rhetoric on Iran Wednesday on "The Kelly File."

"It's vintage Obama - the demonization of his opponents - lumping them together with people chanting 'death to America,' I must say is a new low for the president," Krauthammer said.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

How Jeb and the GOP Got Trumped

The establishment wanted a sweet ’16, not a 17-candidate pileup. Here’s what happened.

Jeb Bush, the man who would be frontrunner, was as surprised as anybody when Donald Trump jumped into the 2016 presidential race in June. His instinctive first reaction was to hold his tongue, and his advisers agreed the best option was to keep his distance from an interloper who wanted to drag him into a reality-show shouting match.

Bush stayed strategically silent even when Trump delivered his infamous crack that some Mexican immigrants were “rapists.” It wasn’t easy, considering Bush speaks nearly flawless Spanish, backs comprehensive immigration reform and is married to the former Columba Garnica de Gallo of Leon, Mexico.

Like everyone else, Bush soon found Trump impossible to ignore. When Trump reposted a nasty tweet a couple of weeks after his contentious announcement speech— “Bush has to like Mexican illegals because of his wife”—the former Florida governor was forced to respond. “You can love your Mexican-American wife,” he told one interviewer before telling another that Trump was “preying on people’s fears.”

The half-dozen conservative senators and governors who had planned to run before Bush brought out his shock-and-awe fundraising campaign, had to laugh: They viewed Bush himself as an intruder, a political semi-retiree who sat on the sidelines for eight years while they fought Barack Obama. Now it was Bush’s turn to rage at an outsider.

“Seriously, what’s this guy’s problem?” he asked one party donor he ran into recently according to accounts provided by several sources close to Bush—and he went on to describe the publicity seeking real estate developer now surging in public polls far ahead of Bush and all the 15 others in the Republican field as “a buffoon,” “clown” and “asshole.”

***

Whatever Bush wants to call Trump, the most accurate appellation heading into Thursday night’s first big Republican debate of the chaotic 2016 contest in Cleveland is the label that should have been Bush’s: “frontrunner.”

Bush may yet emerge as the party’s nominee, the third member of his family to claim the mantle, and his aides now claim Trump’s bloviating presence in a record-shattering field of 17 could be a blessing, allowing Bush to fly under the radar. But Trump’s rise has coincided Bush’s awkward return to the national stage, and he has proven to be gaffe-prone on the trail (Just this week he had to quickly walk back a statement that he wanted to de-fund “women’s health” programs, when he meant to say abortion services). The party’s conservative primary voters remain lukewarm and as importantly, he hasn’t scared rivals out of the race despite a massive $100 million-plus fundraising haul during his first few months in the race.

As much as anything, this is the story of 2016 so far. The proliferation of 17 candidates—a mob so big it needed to be subdivided into two separate debates—is a symptom of a deeper dynamic—the absence of a true frontrunner capable of uniting the party.

“The plan isn’t working,” conservative writer James Tobin wrote in Commentary magazine of Bush’s de facto entrance into the race in January. “[O]ther Republicans appear to be insufficiently shocked and awed.”

Trump is besting Bush so far, but it’s hardly a lock that this is anything more than summer fling. So far, The Donald has been immune from the backlash that typically kills mouth-driven campaigns—which is a good thing given his flip-flopping, amateur-hour staffing decisions, and relentless you’re-a-loser negativity, and the bad hair hidden under worse hats. But he shares a characteristic with all those lesser-known candidates who have also flooded into the 2016 race: He sees a vacuum at the top.

“You know, I thought about running in the past,” former New York Gov. George Pataki, the 8th candidate to announce his intention to run, told us. “I came close in 2012, but to be perfectly honest, Mitt Romney had been running for 6 years … it was pretty obvious that he had, if not a lock, a very, very strong hold on the Republican nomination.” 

Via: Politico

Continue Reading....

OBAMA PROVIDING EXTRA MILLION ALIEN WORK PERMITS ANNUALLY

The Obama administration has issued more than 7.4 million work permits to foreign nationals from 2009 – 2014, beyond the approximately one million lawful permanent residents and 700,000 foreign guest workers admitted to the U.S. each year.

In written responses to the Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans obtained by Breitbart News, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reveal that the Obama administration has been approving work authorizations for immigrants beyond admission limits and for some categories of immigrants that Congress never intended to work in the U.S.

Green card holders and foreign nationals on guest worker visas do not need work authorizations.

Beyond those limits each year, these new and renewed work permit approvals amounted to about 1.23 million in fiscal year 2009, 1.08 million in FY 2010, 970,277 in FY 2011, 1.24 million in FY 2012, 1.68 million in FY 2013 and 1.24 million in FY 2014.

Such categories of immigrants that received permits include: Illegal immigrants granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, immigrants granted Temporary Protective Status (TPS), spouses of guest workers, various types of foreign students, immigrants granted voluntary departure, parolees, as well as asylees and refugees.

Further, more than 113,800 individuals with final orders of deportation also were granted work permits in that six year span.

A number of categories of immigrants granted work permits simply had immigration applications pending without approval. Those work permit approvals include immigrants with TPS pending, application for suspension of deportation, “in proceedings,” adjustment applicants, asylum applicants, and pending Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) applicants.

For example,from FY 2009-FY 2014 more than 356,600 applicants for asylum were granted work permits. Another 2.69 million work permit approvals were for immigrants applying for an adjustment of status.

In addition to the raw work permit data, USCIS also provided a list of every zip code in the country, revealing where these extra work permits or EADs were issued each fiscal year.

The two zip codes with the greatest number of extra EADs in FY 2014 was in Flushing, NY (11355 and 11354) with 6,529 and 4,800 EADs. The zip code with the third most EADs in FY 2014 was Brooklyn, NY (11220) with 4,106 EADs. A zip code in San Gabriel, CA (91776) boasted the fourth most EADs at 3,803. And the zip code with the fifth most EADs was a zip code in Miami (33126) at 3,220.

Readers may see how many extra work permits have been granted in their area by finding their own zip codes here.

The data comes on the heels of a Center for Immigration Studies report, authored by expert Jessica Vaughan, which also revealed 7.4 million excess work permits issued in what she described as a “parallel immigrant work authorization system outside the numerical limits and categories set by Congress.”

Vaughan’s data obtained, via a Freedom of Information Act request, yielded different categories of immigrants. USCIS explained in its response that the new data is an update to the data provided in the FIOA.

Of the updated data, Vaughan explained to Breitbart News that the numbers show the Obama administration has been “abusing what should be considered very limited authority to issue work permits.”

She noted that while work permits have been intended to be a benefit for those who are applying for legal status or as a temporary benefit, the administration has issued them to people who are not eligible for legal status.

“Work permits have always been intended as a transitional benefit to assist someone that is in the process of applying for legal status, or as a temporary benefit.  The administration has used them as a way to secretly give out benefits to huge numbers of people who are not eligible for a legal status,” she wrote in an email to Breitbart News.  “They are using them to bypass the law and evade the rules set by Congress that limit the number of people who can take jobs here.

Vaughan further called on Congress to take action to rein in the issuance of these work permits.

“It’s no wonder people are flocking here to claim asylum, enrolling in school, and using other tactics to get here by hook or by crook.  This shadow immigration system is displacing Americans and legal workers from jobs, and Congress needs to take back control of the process without delay,” she emailed.

When Vaughan’s report broke earlier this year, the chairman of the immigration subcommittee, 

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

80%

, called for an investigation.

“This massive increase in the labor supply has occurred simultaneously with a steep drop in family incomes and a sharp rise in the number of Americans pushed out of the workforce. All jobs gains since the recession have gone to foreign workers, while the slack labor market has depressed median family incomes almost $5,000 in that time,” he said at the time.

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Ed Klein: Hillary Racing to Stave Off Indictment

President Barack Obama and those closest to him are "doing everything they can" to encourage Vice President Joe Biden to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, former New York Times Magazine editor-in-chief Edward Klein tells Newsmax TV.

In a panel discussion Tuesday on "Newsmax Prime" with host J.D. Hayworth and Miranda Khan, the author of "Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas," said the push is coming from the president, First Lady Michelle Obama and Obama's senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

"[They] are doing everything they can at this point to encourage Joe Biden to throw in his hat," he said.

Klein said he also believes Clinton is in "a kind of race against time."

"Which is going to come first, is she going to be able to sew up the nomination by just throwing more money, more organization at the primaries so that she is unbeatable – or will a criminal indictment come down from the Justice Department [over her personal email system while Secretary of State] before that fact?" Klein said.

"And they're very concerned about which is going to come first."

Political commentator Dick Morris said if a possible Biden candidacy doesn't signal any animosity between the Obama and Clinton camps, "there sure will be if Biden runs, because the inevitable dynamos of the race are going to cause it, even if nobody wants it."

"You can only have one candidate out there saying everything Obama's doing is right…. I'll just continue what Obama's doing," he said. "You can't have two candidates saying that because the other one won't get covered and Biden lives on campus. These are his programs as well as Obama's."

Morris added Hillary Clinton, in order to get media coverage, will have to distinguish herself, and that means criticizing the president's record — "at first gently," but eventually becoming "more and more acerbic."

"It really could endanger Hillary's pursuit of Obama's base," Morris predicted.

In the meantime, Morris predicts Clinton's polling will continue continue to trend downard.

"I believe that Hillary is in free fall," Morris said. "She's dropped from the high 60s to 37 percent in favorability and she's going to continue to drop and she's losing her grip on the base and the Clintons are wrong. Something may happen before she sews up the nomination ... which is the sound of Hillary crashing and hitting bottom.

"If Biden comes into the race, the opening head to head would probably be Hillary 38 [percent support], Biden 18, [Vermont Sen. Bernie] Sanders 15. And then a month later, it'll become close to a two-way tie. I don't think that Hillary can easily defeat Biden and Sanders. Biden would probably win that contest."

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Report: Food Stamp Use Up 300 Percent Since ’00, As Eligibility Requirements Dropped

Food stamp use has increased nearly 300 percent nationwide since 2014, despite a drop in the poverty rate, according to a report released Wednesday by The Foundation for Government Accountability.

“Even though poverty rates are declining, the number of people receiving food stamps continues to climb,” the report detailed. “Food stamp spending is growing ten times as fast as federal revenues.”

According to their report — “Restoring Work Requirements Will Help Solve the Food Stamp Crisis” — the problem results from less restrictive eligibility requirements.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the main agency in charge of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). According to its own findings, SNAP has increased from 17 million participants in 2000 to nearly 47 million in 2014. Concurrently, work requirements were waived in many states.

“Federal law generally limits food stamp eligibility for non-disabled childless adults to just three months out of any three-year period unless they meet specified work requirements,” the report also noted. “These work requirements have become irrelevant in recent years, however, as states have been given waivers to exempt able-bodied adults from federal work requirements.”

The Obama administration had granted working requirement waivers to 40 states and partial waivers to another six states. As a result more states are providing food stamp benefits to more adults who don’t work despite not having physical disabilities preventing them from doing so.

“By 2013, a record-high 4.9 million able-bodied, childless adults were receiving food stamps,” the report continued. “Federal spending on food stamps for able-bodied adults skyrocketed to more than $10 billion in 2013, up from just $462 million in 2000.”

The size of the program alone has prompted concern among among many lawmakers. Some on the state and federal level have tried reforming the program by getting work requirements back or adding additional eligibility requirements. In July, the administration for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sued the USDA after the agency informed the state itcould not drug-test those on food stamps. Walker is currently running for the Republican nomination for president.

“The way forward for states could not be more simple or clear,” the report concluded. “Governors should decline to renew the federal waivers that have eliminated work requirements for able-bodied childless adults on food stamps.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Why this week’s presidential debate doesn’t matter

By Vic Berardelli, Special to the BDN

Posted Aug. 05, 2015, at 7:29 a.m.

Last modified Aug. 05, 2015, at 10:42 a.m.

Do not pay much attention to this week’s televised presidential debate. It has as much value as the sideshow on the carnival midway.

It is far too early for candidates to square off on the vital issues facing the nation.

This is the time in a campaign cycle for candidates to introduce themselves to voters and acquaint the public with their back-story. They cannot deliberate stands on issues until they have the credibility to be taken seriously.

Voters need to know them first. I believe that Donald Trump’s name recognition is a far greater factor to his early poll leads than anything he had said. Many valid candidates are in low single digits simply because only full-time political junkies know them.

This is a problem on both sides.

Jim Webb and Martin O’Malley both have impressive credentials but stand little chance in early Democratic primaries against the Hillary juggernaut because nobody outside their home states know them. Webb, a Vietnam veteran with Navy Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart, is a former U.S. senator from Virginia and was Navy secretary, assistant defense secretary and counsel to the House Veterans Affairs Committee. O’Malley was a Baltimore city councilor and mayor during the renaissance of the city, Maryland governor and chaired the Democratic Governors Association.

Neither is in the headlines every day, so they fall back in the field. When they do get exposure, it is to answer questions about the frontrunner rather than to position themselves and their own unique approach to governing.

Media-feeding frenzy has forced a series of debates, none of which will be significant until closer to actual Election Day. Moreover, this August spectacle is something more appropriate for a New Hampshire town hall than a national audience.

In the process, lesser-known but well-qualified candidates will fall by the wayside.

Those who condemn money in politics are naïve. The only way for a candidate to introduce himself or herself directly to voters is with a substantial funding in order to advertise heavily and bypass the chance passing references in free media that are overlooked.

We see it firsthand here in the 2nd Congressional District, which is so large geographically that no candidate could meet all voters personally. It isn’t like a legislative district where a candidate can go door-to-door and have personal conversations with voters. And heavy fundraising is essential because to reach all voters in the 2nd District requires buying ads in three television markets and in every daily newspaper except York County’s. Congressional candidates in large urban areas have it much easier with just one TV market buy, and they have the luxury of smaller geography, allowing visits that are more diverse in an average campaign day.

Presidential politics is even more complex. Astute candidates are not even reaching out to the nation-at-large. Hillary Clinton wisely started TV ads this week limited to New Hampshire and Iowa because that is where the first delegate elections take place in five months.

(For real political junkies, the best text on the system is David Plouffe’s “The Audacity to Win,” which chronicles with candid detail the 2007-08 strategies that he and David Axelrod deployed on a targeted state-by-state basis to thrust relative unknown Illinois Sen. Barack Obama ahead of better-known Clinton, Biden and Edwards.)

The key is to introduce the candidate as a person and move up from there to the issues. In our campaign schools, my partners and I teach that, “A nobody cannot challenge a somebody.” The first task is to introduce oneself to voters with enough biographical information that they are comfortable that the candidate has standing to discuss positions in contrast to the opponent.

Hillary’s ad this week is about her mother and background, not about her adult positions or policies because, even as well-known as she is, polls show voters do not really know her. Bruce Poliquin used a similar ploy early in the 2014 primary season with biographical background ads.

With enough money for saturation, the information seeps into voters’ brains, so issues can be discussed in the next round without the mental filter of, “Who the hell is this, and why should I care what he or she thinks?”

Instead of early debates, media would serve voters better with a series of biographical profiles to introduce the field without political filters. Instead of an August debate, perhaps every Democrat and Republican hopeful should get five minutes uninterrupted to present a personal background.

Once we know them, we would be more receptive to learn what they have to say. Then they can go into combat to winnow down the field to the most qualified.

Vic Berardelli, a retired political consultant is author of “The Politics Guy Campaign Tips – How to Win a Local Election.” Now an unenrolled independent, he is a former Republican State Committeeman and former member of the Republican Liberty Caucus National Board.

Via: Banger Daily News

Continue Reading....

Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?

From Obama’s pitch for his Iran deal today: Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those . . . 

(APPLAUSE) In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

Directly accusing your opponents of allying with wannabe-genocidal, anti-Semitic, authoritarian nutjobs. Very presidential, that’s the way to win ’em over.

Obama and Iran’s “Hardliners”

I’d like to add a few observations to Patrick’s astute post on President Obama’s insulting and troublingly detached-from-reality speech today on his indefensible Iran deal.

 In Iran, what Obama referred to as “hardliners” chanting “Death to America” are the regime. First and foremost among them is “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Obama’s claim that Iranian “hardliners” really oppose the deal – which which of course implies that he is only dealing with regime “moderates” (what else?) with whom we can safely play ball, is a fairy tale. To be sure, Obama’s media friends are helping him broadcast this fairy tale; that, no doubt, is why the president is able to run to the nearest college campus and get applause for his kooky claims. But the reality is that Khamenei – the guy Obama implored to cooperate with him – is the chief hardliner. The Iran deal could not have happened unless Khamenei supported it; he supports it precisely because it is breathtakingly good for Iran. 

The supreme leader is chief of the “Death to America” cheering squad. Not only did Khamenei actively join regime subordinates in chanting “Death to America” while the negotiations with Obama and Kerry were ongoing. (See also Mona’s column on this subject.) Even four days after the deal was announced, knowing that Congress was still to review it, Khamenei could not help himself but praise Iranians for chanting “Death to Israel, Death to the U.S.” during the negotiations. 

At the same time, Iran’s very “moderate” foreign minister Javad Zarif, who not only supports the deal but negotiated it, assured Iranians that the regime would “continue the arms supply policy” under which it supports Hezbollah and other anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli jihadists. The only difference is that, now, thanks to Obama’s deal, they will have an additional $100 billion-plus with which to materially support terrorism.

 So the fact of the matter is that the people on Capitol Hill who oppose the deal are the people on the side of authentic Iranian moderates. It is Obama who is lending aid and comfort to America’s avowed, unapologetic enemies – enemies who could not be more brazen in trumpeting their hostility, and who steer a regime that has killed thousands of Americans. 

The people who oppose this deal are the ones who effectively oppose Iran’s hardliners (rather than pretending to oppose while aiding and abetting them). The people who oppose this deal recognize that it will strengthen the hand of the tyrannical jihadist regime, enabling it to solidify its hold on power and continue persecuting the Iranian people who despise the regime. 

On that score, it is worth recalling that in 2009, when Iranian democracy activists rose up in protest and appeared poised to attempt overthrowing the hardliner regime, it was Obama – not Americans who oppose Obama’s Iran deal – who turned a deaf ear to them, even as the regime shot them dead in the streets. The president had his choice between cajoling Iranian hardliners and championing Iranians who yearn for a better relationship with the West … and he made it.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

Voting Rights Act Used to Strike Down Texas Voter ID Law

Veasey celebrated the ruling as a victory for all Texas voters. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

On the eve of its 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court on Wednesday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Texas’ strict voter ID law violates Section 2 of landmark civil rights legislation.

Texas Rep. Marc Veasey, the lead plaintiff in the original suit brought against the photo ID law, heralded the ruling as a victory for Lone Star minority voters.

“As a champion for voting rights, I am proud that with this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has taken the first steps towards ensuring that all Texans have unfettered access to the ballot box,” he said in a statement. 

Veasey, joined by the U.S. Justice Department and minority rights groups, had argued that the voter ID law first passed by the state’s GOP legislature in 2011 was intended to discriminate against minority voters. As such, the plaintiffs argued, it amounted to a poll tax.

The appeals court agreed with the district court that the law has had a “discriminatory effect,” which violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But it disagreed with the lower court’s ruling that it was crafted with discriminatory intent and remanded it back to the lower court for further consideration.

It’s unclear what the fallout of the ruling will be at Texas polling places because the court did not suggest a remedy for its ruling. It remanded that question, too.

Because of its narrow ruling, the unanimous decision can’t be called a complete victory for the plaintiffs, University of California Irvine professor Rick Hasen wrote on his Election Law Blog.

“This also strikes me as an opinion written as narrowly as possible to still give a victory to the plaintiffs. (Perhaps that was the price of a unanimous opinion?),” he wrote.

Despite its limited scope, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa cast the ruling as a win for Democrats. “Once again, the rule of law agrees with Democrats. The Republican voter ID law is discriminatory. Republicans made it harder for African-Americans and Latinos to cast their vote at the ballot box.”

Hinojosa is optimistic that further court consideration of the matter will end in Democrats’ favor.

“We remain confident that the courts will find justice for Texas voters and ultimately strike down this racist and discriminatory law.”

But Texas Republicans insist that a voter ID law is still necessary.

“In light of ongoing voter fraud, it is imperative that Texas has a voter ID law that prevents cheating at the ballot box,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “Texas will continue to fight for its voter ID requirement to ensure the integrity of elections in the Lone Star State.”

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

Thousands of California convicts to regain right to vote in ACLU-state settlement

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California restored voting rights Tuesday to tens of thousands of criminals serving sentences under community supervision, reversing a decision by a state official that they could not participate in elections.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced the settlement between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which sued on behalf of nearly 60,000 convicts who became ineligible to vote when then Secretary of State Debra Bowen determined in 2014 that community supervision was equivalent to parole.

Her decision stemmed from a 2011 realignment of the state's criminal justice law that aims to reduce overcrowding in state prisons by sending people convicted of less serious crimes to county jails or alternative treatment programs.

A judge later overturned Bowen's policy, stating that community supervision and parole are different.

Bowen's office appealed the decision, but Padilla, a fellow Democrat, decided to let the court ruling stand.

The secretary of state's office found the lower court's opinion thorough and convincing, said Padilla spokesman Steve Reyes. He added it is Padilla's position to err on the side of maintaining voting rights in contentious cases.

"When there are questions, we're in favor of keeping the right to vote intact," Reyes said.

Tuesday's announcement was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act.

"Secretary of State Padilla is bucking a national trend in which voting rights are under attack," Lori Shellenberger, director of the ACLU of California's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "We are thrilled that this administration has effectively said 'no' to Jim Crow in California."

Still, California's ruling is a narrow one and unlikely to establish precedent, said Michael Risher, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

Earlier this summer, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, vetoed a bill that would have extended the right to vote to roughly 40,000 convicts on probation or parole.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Via: US News and World Report

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] ‘TRUMP MIGHT BE THE BEST NEGOTIATOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!’

Trump empire legal counsel Michael Cohen isn’t scaling back expectations for the GOP debate. Instead, he’s touting Trump as quite possibly the best negotiator in the history of the world.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....