Wednesday, May 29, 2013

R.I. Gov. Chafee to become Democrat, run for 2nd term

Chafee previously served as a Republican senator, then bolted the GOP to become governor. He's endorsed President Obama twice.

WASHINGTON — Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an independent who used to be a Republican, intends to run for a second term next year -- but as a Democrat.

A Democratic source with knowledge of Chafee's decision confirmed the news to USA TODAY. The source requested anonymity because the source was not authorized to speak ahead of Chafee.

Chafee, elected in 2010, had insisted he would seek a second term despite low job-approval ratings in public opinion polls and hinted he could join the party of President Obama, whom he has endorsed twice.

The governor is expected to announce his new party registration as early as Thursday.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that "the president welcomes Gov. Chafee to the party."

Chafee previously served as a U.S. senator from 1999 to 2007, but as a Republican who bucked the party on the Iraq War and declined to support President George W. Bush for a second term.
Rhode Island's economy has been hard hit and most of Chafee's time in office has been spent dealing with the state's red ink. The state unemployment rate, which was over 11% when Chafee took office, was at 8.8% in April.

A poll taken by Brown University in February showed Chafee had a 25.5% job-approval rating among Rhode Island voters, compared with 73% who said they disapproved of the way he was running the state.

Chafee is the son of John Chafee, a former U.S. senator and governor who died in 1999, who was synonymous with the Republican politics in Rhode Island. The younger Chafee was appointed to serve out his father's Senate term and won election in his own right in 2000.

Lincoln Chafee bolted the GOP in 2007, after losing re-election to the Senate to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. The following year, Chafee gave Barack Obama the first of his two endorsements.

Last year, Chafee was a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. He touted touted Obama's support for same-sex marriage, the environment and abortion rights, and denounced his former Republican Party for its stance on Iraq and Afghanistan and for federal budgets.

"Lincoln Chafee always marched to the beat of his own drummer," said Jennifer Duffy, a political analyst with the Cook Political Report.

Chafee is likely to face a crowded Democratic primary. Rhode Island Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, both prominent Democrats, have already been looking at next year's governor's race.

Duffy said it's not clear whether Chafee's latest party switch will help him. The newly minted Democrat will have to convince activists in the state and nation to back his campaign, over those of Raimondo and Taveras.

"A Democratic primary with two opponents who will be well-funded is a tougher road," she said. "I've been talking to a lot of Democrats and I don't get the sense that there all in behind Chafee. It's not in their best interest to get involved in a primary like this."

Monday, May 20, 2013

Obama's Meeting With IRS Union Leader Not a Smoking Gun

May 20, 2013 RSS Feed Print
 
The conservative blogosphere is up in arms over what appears to be a smoking gun in the Internal Revenue Service scandal.

[POLL: Scandals Not Sticking to Obama]

The American Spectator is reporting that President Barack Obama met with the president of the IRS union a day before the tax agency began targeting tea party groups, citing a meeting between National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley and Obama on March 31, 2010 listed in the White House visitor log.

A team of specialists was formed to look at political cases of tax-exempt groups in April 2010, according to the Treasury Department's inspector general report on the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

The timing appears fishy, but a closer examination of Kelley's visit reveals she was visiting the White House to participate in the "Workplace Flexibility Forum," a March 2010 event that was about the state of flexible work arrangements. According to a April 2010 story in the federal trade worker publication FCW, Kelley spoke at the forum about the benefits of teleworking and other flexible work schedules. FCW reported that the event was hosted by Obama and first lady Michelle Obama.

The visitor log also notes that Kelley's visit took place in the "South Court Auditorium," a large room in the Old Executive Office Building across from the White House - not exactly a prime location for a private meeting.

Kelley's office didn't immediately respond to request for more information about her March 2010 appearance, but we will update when we hear back.

Friday, May 10, 2013

NC House passes bill allowing concealed weapons at college campuses, bars


by Michelle Saxton

Wednesday, May 8, 2013



Staff photo by Joshua Curry
The North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 937 on Tuesday, May 7 affecting firearms policies on college campuses, and inside bars and restaurants.



North Carolina lawmakers have passed a bill to increase penalties for certain crimes in which firearms are used and to also allow people with concealed handgun permits to bring firearms into restaurants and bars or to be kept in a locked vehicle on college or university campuses.
 
The bill, which passed its third reading 78-42 on Tuesday, May 7, has been supported by the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association but opposed by some university chancellors.
 
“House Bill 937 is an effort to protect the rights of individuals who abide by our gun laws and to increase penalties on those who do not,” bill sponsor Rep. Jacqueline Schaffer, R-Mecklenberg, said in an online audio feed of a bill debate Monday, May 6. Schaffer, an attorney, added the bill would make it a crime to allow children access to firearms without supervision and parental consent.
 
But several lawmakers raised concerns about allowing concealed handguns in places where they currently are banned.
 
People do not need to go out to dinner fearing there might be an accidental discharge or bar room brawl or worrying about irate fans in stadiums, said Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake, who added colleges and universities have said “no thank you” to the bill.
 
“Why are you giving people something that they emphatically do not want and that will subject them to acts of violence in places where they already feel safe?” Ross, a consultant, said during the May 6 session. “This is not something that makes this state a better place. It’s something that puts us on Stephen Colbert.”
 
Cape Fear Community College President Ted Spring had not yet made a public statement on the bill, David Hardin, director of marketing and public relations, said May 7.
 
“It’s definitely something that we’re watching very carefully,” Hardin said. “If it becomes law it will affect our current policy on campus.”
 
University of North Carolina Wilmington Chancellor Gary Miller released a statement in late April, saying the potential increase in gun-related incidents on campus is not worth the minimal convenience the bill would offer concealed-carry permit holders.
 
“Allowing people to store weapons in their cars does not in any way benefit their personal safety while on campus; the idea of people having the time and capacity to retreat to their vehicles to arm themselves during a threat has very little chance of occurring,” Miller said. “The realities, however, are much more harsh. We will face the possibility of guns being stolen from vehicles by people who are already demonstrating a disregard for the law by breaking into cars — and now could be armed with stolen handguns.”
 
North Carolina is among 22 states that currently ban carrying concealed weapons on college campuses, while 23 other states allow individual colleges and universities to ban or allow concealed carry weapons and five states allow it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
 
Many students must work while in school and may have to commute during late hours in the dark, and they should have the right to protect themselves, said bill sponsor Rep. John Faircloth, R-Guilford, a real estate broker.
 
“What we’re saying here is not that a person can walk on to the campus of one of our universities, strap on his six-shooter and make his way through campus as a big man,” Faircloth said during the May 6 session.
Rep. Larry Pittman, R-Cabarrus, a pastor, said the bill does not go far enough, including with concerns that guns could be stolen from cars.
 
“I would say the best way to deal with that is allow them to carry it in the classroom,” Pittman said.
“The last thing I want is someone to have a gun in my class,” Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, an attorney who has taught at Fayetteville State University and Campbell University School of Law, said later in the debate. “I’m a tough grader.”
 
The bill would not allow guns in college classrooms.
 
Rep. Darren Jackson, D-Wake, spoke of the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court ruling about the second amendment, which noted that right has limits.
 
Alcohol and firearms do not mix, said Jackson, an attorney and gun owner.
 
“When I go out to a restaurant with my family …I don’t want to have to worry about the guy next to me, if he’s had too much to drink,” Jackson said, later adding, “The more places we allow guns the more accidents we’re going to have happen.”
 
Of New Hanover County’s representatives, Reps. Rick Catlin and Ted Davis Jr., both Republicans, voted for the bill, and Rep. Susi Hamilton, a Democrat, voted against it.
 
Several amendments were tabled without discussion May 6 that would have required universal background checks for the private transfer of firearms, increased penalties for carrying a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol and limited the size of ammunition magazines.
 
Meanwhile, the House also passed a bill 110-8 on May 7 to allow judges and court clerks to carry concealed handguns if they have a permit. All three New Hanover County representatives voted for it.
Davis, among House Bill 405’s sponsors, has said not all judges want to carry weapons, but some would like to because they get threats on their lives.
 
“They felt like it was needed for their protection,” Davis, an attorney, said in a phone interview Friday, May 3.
Both bills were to be sent to the Senate.
 
Meanwhile, lawmakers were expected to be busy the next couple weeks making sure House bills get passed and ready for the Senate — and vice versa — by the May 16 crossover deadline.
 
“Any bills that anyone wants to have the possibility of becoming law … (have) to be passed by the respective chamber by the crossover date,” Davis said.
 

Wednesday, May 8, 2013


Air Force strips 17 officers of nuclear watch command

This file photo provided by the National Park Service shows the inside of the deactivated Delta Nine Launch Facility near Wall, South Dakota The inside of the deactivated Delta Nine nuclear missile launch facility near Wall, South Dakota

 

The US Air Force has stripped 17 officers of the authority to control nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, US media have reported.

The unprecedented action was taken in April, after the unit's deputy commander wrote in an email the programme was suffering "rot".

The story was first reported by the Associated Press.

The Air Force's top official told a Senate hearing that the revelation shows it has strengthened inspections.

Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, said he was confident that the nuclear missile force was secure.
24-hour watch
In an email initially obtained by the AP, Lieutenant Colonel Jay Folds wrote that drastic action was needed because "we didn't wake up" after an underwhelming inspection the month before.

The 91st Operations Group at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, the unit responsible for 15 Minuteman III missile launch control centres, received an satisfactory review overall in March.

But the unit received the equivalent of a D grade on the test of its mastery of the missile launch operations.

Minuteman launch crews have long been marginalised and demoralised by the fact that the Air Force's culture and fast-track careers revolve around flying planes”
 
End Quote Bruce Blair Former ICBM officer

Lt Col Folds also complained of unwarranted questioning of orders by launch crews and the failure of more senior officers to report infractions.

"We're discovering such rot in the crew force," he wrote, that the unit was accepting violations of safety rules and code compromises "all in the name of not inconveniencing yourselves".

The 17 officers were removed from duty of 24-hour shifts watching over nuclear missiles that can strike targets across the globe. Inside each underground launch control capsule, two officers stand "alert" at all times, ready to launch an ICBM upon presidential order.

The Air Force said the lapses never put the security of the nuclear force at risk and that the officers pulled from the watch will receive more training. They are expected to return to normal duty within two months.

The service has removed officers from nuclear authority before, but never so many at one time.

The move comes after a 2008 Pentagon report excoriated the Air Force for a series of blunders, including a bomber's mistaken flight across the country armed with nuclear-tipped missiles.

The top civilian and military leaders of the Air Force resigned over the report.

It had taken numerous steps since then to improve the force's nuclear performance.
Deep malaise
At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Mr Donley said the launch control officers were relatively junior in rank and needed to be reminded continually of the importance of "this awesome responsibility".

Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air Force, gestures as he testifies during the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the Air Force Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, 8 May 2013 Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said the nation's nuclear missile force is secure

The Air Force's chief of staff also endorsed the handling of the situation by Minot Air Force base officials and said it had been "more of an attitude problem than a proficiency problem".

But at least one senator was not calmed by official assurances. Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin, chairman of the Senate appropriations defence subcommittee, expressed outrage, saying the AP report revealed a problem that "could not be more troubling".

Bruce Blair, who served as an Air Force ICBM launch control officer in the 1970s and is a co-founder of nuclear weapons elimination group Global Zero, said the email points to a broader problem.

"The nuclear air force is suffering from a deep malaise caused by the declining relevance of their mission since the Cold War's end over 20 years ago," Mr Blair said.

"Minuteman launch crews have long been marginalised and demoralised by the fact that the Air Force's culture and fast-track careers revolve around flying planes, not sitting in underground bunkers baby-sitting nuclear-armed missiles."

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Workers Claim Race Bias as Farms Rely on Immigrants

  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
  • Grant Blankenship for The New York Times
NEXT
Working for hours on end under a punishing sun, the pickers are said to be crowded into squalid camps, driven without a break and even cheated of wages.

VIDALIA, Ga. — For years, labor unions and immigrant rights activists have accused large-scale farmers, like those harvesting sweet Vidalia onions here this month, of exploiting Mexican guest workers. Working for hours on end under a punishing sun, the pickers are said to be crowded into squalid camps, driven without a break and even cheated of wages.
 
But as Congress weighs immigration legislation expected to expand the guest worker program, another group is increasingly crying foul — Americans, mostly black, who live near the farms and say they want the field work but cannot get it because it is going to Mexicans. They contend that they are illegally discouraged from applying for work and treated shabbily by farmers who prefer the foreigners for their malleability.
      
“They like the Mexicans because they are scared and will do anything they tell them to,” said Sherry Tomason, who worked for seven years in the fields here, then quit. Last month she and other local residents filed a federal lawsuit against a large grower of onions, Stanley Farms, alleging that it mistreated them and paid them less than it paid the Mexicans.
      
The suit is one of a number of legal actions containing similar complaints against farms, including a large one in Moultrie, Ga., where Americans said they had been fired because of their race and national origin, given less desirable jobs and provided with fewer work opportunities than Mexican guest workers. Under a consent decree with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the farm, Southern Valley, agreed to make certain changes
.
With local unemployment about 10 percent and the bureaucracy for hiring foreigners onerous — guest workers have to be imported and housed and require extensive paperwork — it would seem natural for farmers to hire from their own communities, which they did a generation ago.
In fact, the farmers say, they would dearly like to.
      
“We have tried to fill our labor locally,” said Brian Stanley, an owner of Stanley Farms, which is being sued by Ms. Tomason and others. “But we couldn’t get enough workers, and that was hindering our growth. So we turned to the guest worker program.”
      
The vast majority of farm workers in the country are not in the guest worker program but are simply unauthorized immigrants. The plan to place those workers on a path to legal status would reduce the chances of their being exploited, the bill’s sponsors say, and thereby also improve the status of Americans who feel they cannot compete against vulnerable foreigners.
      
Mr. Stanley, like other farmers, argues that Americans who say they want the work end up quitting because it is hard, leaving the crops to rot in the fields. But the situation is filled with cultural and racial tensions.
      
Even many of the Americans who feel mistreated acknowledge that the Mexicans who arrive on buses for a limited period are incredibly efficient, often working into the night seven days a week to increase their pay.
      
“We are not going to run all the time,” said Henry Rhymes, who was fired — unfairly, he says — from Southern Valley after a week on the job. “We are not Mexicans.”
      
Jon Schwalls, director of operations at Southern Valley, made a similar point.
      
“When Jose gets on the bus to come here from Mexico he is committed to the work,” he said. “It’s like going into the military. He leaves his family at home. The work is hard, but he’s ready. A domestic wants to know: What’s the pay? What are the conditions? In these communities, I am sorry to say, there are no fathers at home, no role models for hard work. They want rewards without input.”
Such generalizations lead lawyers — and residents — to say there are racist undertones to the farms’ policies.
      
“I am not arguing that agricultural work is a good job,” said Dawson Morton, a lawyer who focuses on farm workers’ rights at the Georgia Legal Services Program, a nonprofit law firm. “I am arguing that it could be a better job. If you want experienced people, train them. Just because people are easier to supervise, agricultural employers shouldn’t be able to import them. It is not true that Americans don’t want the work. What the farmers are really saying is that blacks just don’t want to work.”
      
To which J. Larry Stine, an Atlanta lawyer for Stanley Farms and other big farms, replied: “The farmers are not racist or against Americans. They have crops to be picked, and they see that domestics just don’t have their hearts in it.”
      
Jim Knoepp of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit group that has campaigned against the guest worker program, said that farm work, like other difficult labor, could be made attractive to Americans at reasonable cost, and that farmers should not be excused from doing so.
“There used to be lots of American pickers who moved around the country,” he said. “But wages have stagnated and conditions have deteriorated, and agriculture is unwilling to make these jobs attractive. Think of trash collection. That’s not very appealing, either. But if you offer a decent wage and conditions, people do it.”
      
Cindy Hahamovitch, an expert on guest worker programs at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, said that in the 1970s about two-thirds of farm workers were Americans and a third were foreign, and that a decade later the proportion was reversed. Today, she said, the vast majority of farm workers around the country are immigrants, although not in the guest worker program.
      
Republicans in Congress, mindful of the Democrats’ desire to bring legal status to the nation’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants, have made an expansion of the guest worker program a key element of any deal. Current proposals include increasing the number and category of temporary workers to the dairy and construction industries, and increasing their stays from a matter of months to three years so that employers have the workers they say they need.
      
The guest workers who are planting cucumbers for Southern Valley and harvesting onions for Stanley Farms are among 10,000 holders of H-2A visas in Georgia this year and 85,000 nationally. They are generally guaranteed a minimum wage of just over $9 an hour, but are paid per piece and can boost those wages by increasing their productivity. Other workers, known as H-2B and numbering around 65,000, labor in other businesses in which there is a demand for temporary or seasonal workers, including hotels.
      
Employers must show that they have tried to hire Americans through advertising and other means and that they could not attract enough of them before resorting to the H-2 system. In the litigation that resulted in the consent decree with Southern Valley, the federal government argued that the effort had not been made or had been intentionally not serious. Excuses were used not to hire locals or to fire them — training was minimal, and people were fired when they were less skilled than others who had been doing the work for years.
      
“You’ve got some people who don’t work as fast as Mexicans, but they don’t teach you, and it can be learned,” said Misty Johnson, who was fired and then rehired by Southern Valley as part of the consent decree.
      
For the past few months, Southern Valley has been required to provide daily bus transportation to the farm and demonstrate that it was training and retaining Americans. But a recent inspection of those efforts left federal officials unimpressed.
      
Southern Valley officials make no secret of their belief that the consent decree — the free bus, the orientation program they now run and the training — is a waste of their time and money. They assert that there is no discrimination and that they would prefer to hire locals if they could.
      
Lawyers for the local workers say the system is rigged to favor low-cost foreign labor because, given the conditions and the pay, no one else will do it.
      
“If you can’t find locals to do the work, why is the answer to bring in people who have little protection and not grant them legal status?” asked Mr. Knoepp of the Southern Poverty Law Center. “If we need them, why not bring them in and make them legal citizens with real protections? The answer is because then they wouldn’t keep working in the fields given the conditions of that work. They would do something else. It doesn’t have to be this way.”

Friday, May 3, 2013

Sources: U.S. believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria

By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
updated 8:32 PM EDT, Fri May 3, 2013
Watch this video

U.S. officials: Israel airstrike on Syria

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Sources say a strike mostly likely occurred in the Thursday-Friday time frame
  • The U.S. does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace
(CNN) -- The United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two U.S. officials tell CNN.

U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials. This is the same time frame that the U.S. collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon.

One official said the United States had limited information so far and could not yet confirm those are the specific warplanes that conducted a strike. Based on initial indications, the U.S. does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strikes.

Both officials said there is no reason to believe Israel struck at a chemical weapons storage facilities. The Israelis have long said they would strike at any targets that prove to be the transfer of any kinds of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could threaten Israel.

The Lebanese army website listed 16 flights by Israeli warplanes penetrating Lebanon's airspace from Thursday evening through Friday afternoon local time.

The Israeli military had no comment. But a source in the Israeli defense establishment told CNN's Sara Sidner, "We will do whatever is necessary to stop the transfer of weapons from Syria to terrorist organizations. We have done it in the past and we will do it if necessary the future."

Michael Savage Trashes ‘Fake Conservative’ Hannity: ‘One Of The Most Shallow Men In Media’


Unbeknownst to those Americans who do not listen to conservative talk radio, there exists a long-standing feud between some of the most well-known names in the business. The most widely-known battle has been between Mark Levin and The Savage Nation host Michael Savage — the two have had it out over a variety of issues, including claims of who has greater listenership.

It seems as though Savage also has beef with Levin’s good friend Sean Hannity, mostly on the grounds that the Fox News host is a “fake conservative.” On his Monday evening show, Savage took to bashing Hannity for what he believes is the cable news host’s desire to go to war with Syria.
“Some of the so-called conservatives are in favor of American men dying,” Savage began. “For example… Sean Hannity — who is known to be one of the, let us say, most shallow men in the America media, who gives conservatism its reputation of being shallow — back in 2012, called for war in Syria.”

Reacting to the old Fox clip in which Hannity decried the “prescription for disaster” seen in Syria now that the regime has the capabilities to use chemical weapons, Savage said: “You’re like a bad pharmacist. And if anyone takes your pill, they’re liable to get poisoned rather than cured. Because what you’re doing there is putting out so many ideas that are fraudulent that it gives true conservatives a bad name.”

Savage then went on to lambast “another fake conservative” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and mock him as a “gun for hire” and “super-lobbyist” for “American boys dying” in a potential conflict with Syria.

Poll: Obama gets negative ratings on immigration, guns

 
More people disapprove than approve of the way President Obama is handling immigration and guns, according to a new poll by Quinnipiac University.

Fifty percent don’t like the way he is handling immigration policy, compared with 40 percent who do, the poll found. That negative rating is due in large part to independents, 55 percent of whom disapprove of his handling of the issue. Only 34 percent approve.

On gun policy, some 52 percent disapprove of his approach, while 41 percent approve. That could be due in part to the loss in the Senate of the gun control proposal he pushed for expanded background checks for gun buyers.

He generally gets good marks on foreign policy in the poll — 47 percent approve of his overall approach to foreign policy, 54 percent approve of his handling of North Korea, and 55 percent approving of his handling of terrorism. On Syria, voters are basically split, with 37 percent approving and 35 percent disapproving.

His overall job approval has remained relatively stable with 48 percent approving and 45 percent disapproving, compared with 49 percent approving and 45 percent disapproving a month earlier, Quinnipiac found.

But a growing majority are dissatisfied with the direction of the country — 72 percent. That’s up from 69 percent a month earlier. Only 27 percent are satisfied, down from 30 percent last month.
Quinnipiac surveyed 1,471 registered voters between April 25 and 29. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Colbert Busch goes for jugular in only debate with Sanford, raises issue of affair

(Rainier Ehrhardt/ Associated Press ) - Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford leans against a wall as he waits before the 1st Congressional District debate on Monday, April 29, 2013 in Charleston S.C.
(Rainier Ehrhardt/ Associated Press ) - Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford leans against a wall as he waits before the 1st Congressional District debate on Monday, April 29, 2013 in Charleston S.C.
 
CHARLESTON, S.C. — With only eight days to go before a special congressional election, the chief rival to former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford went for the jugular in the candidates’ only debate, homing in on the extramarital affair that nearly destroyed his career and possibly signaling a last-minute change in a strategy that previously avoided attacks.

Until now, Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch had refused to bring up Sanford’s personal past. But on Monday, their only joint appearance in the race for the vacant 1st Congressional District in South Carolina, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert pounced on the opportunity.
More business news
 
As Sanford stressed his efforts to rein in spending as a three-term holder of the congressional seat and a two-term governor, Colbert Busch reminded him that he once used taxpayer funds to “leave the country for a personal purpose” — referring to the extramarital affair with an Argentine woman he had while governor.

Sanford is trying to rebound from the scandal, which sidelined his political career and forced him to pay the largest ethics fine ever in South Carolina, $70,000.

Although the district leans Republican and Sanford held the congressional seat for three terms in the 1990s, the race is considered close.

With Election Day just a week away, both candidates were to have separate appearances Tuesday, then appear before a Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce group on the city’s waterfront before attending a forum sponsored by the Goose Creek NAACP. During both appearances, the candidates will address attendees but won’t debate.

Monday’s debate took place before a lively audience, whose members frequently erupted in shouts or applause.

When Colbert Busch first made the remark about Sanford’s affair, the former governor said he didn’t hear it and asked to have it repeated. Ultimately, he didn’t respond.

Later, he was reminded by a questioner that he voted to impeach President Bill Clinton because of his involvement with Monica Lewinsky and asked if he would vote that way again.
“I would reverse the question,” Sanford said. “Do you think President Clinton should be condemned for the rest of his life for a mistake he made in his life?”

In 2009, Sanford, after telling his staff he was out hiking the Appalachian Trail, returned to the state to reveal that he was in Argentina with a woman he later became engaged to after divorcing his wife, Jenny. Before leaving office, Sanford avoided impeachment but was censured by the Legislature over state travel expenses he used for the affair.

On the issues, Colbert Busch, who worked for years for a shipping company, criticized Sanford for voting in Congress against money for dredging the Charleston Harbor shipping channel and building a higher bridge so the Port of Charleston can handle a new generation of larger container ships.

Sanford shot back that if it bothered her so much before, she wouldn’t have written him a “$500 check as I left the Congress to run for governor.” He added “I was against earmarks before being against earmarks was cool.”

Colbert Busch also said that, if elected, she would return 10 percent of her congressional salary to the government.
The candidates differed over issues such as immigration reform, the federal health care overhaul and abortion during the debate sponsored by the Patch news service, the South Carolina Radio Network and Charleston television station WCBD.

Sanford repeatedly tried to tie Colbert Busch to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and labor unions but she said she would be an independent voice and responsible only to the residents of the district. They also had different takes on the state of affairs.

“We’re at an incredible tipping point as a civilization and I think if we don’t get spending right in Washington, D.C., there will be real consequences,” Sanford warned.

“Here’s the fundamental difference,” Colbert Busch responded. “This is not the end of our time as we know it. The sky is not falling Henny Penny. In fact our best days are ahead of us.”
The debate was their first joint appearance in the campaign that began after then-U.S. Rep. Tim Scott was appointed to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by fellow Republican Jim DeMint.

“I rocked it,” Colbert Busch said following the 75-minute debate before an audience of about 500 at The Citadel, which was telecast on C-SPAN. Sanford said he would let the pundits decide who won.
Sanford and Colbert Busch are vying along with Green Party Candidate Eugene Platt in the May 7 special election in the district.

 

Monday, April 29, 2013

Giuliani: Abrupt Halt to Suspect's Questioning Is ‘Mind-Boggling’

Friday, 26 Apr 2013 11:49 AM
By Kenneth Hanner and Sandy Fitzgerald
       
 
Republican outrage is rising over the decision to read teenage Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights just as he was beginning to open up about the blast that killed three and injured about 270 people.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said it was “ridiculous” that a judge stopped the questioning while the 19-year-old was talking to FBI agents.

And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers called the decision to intervene a “God-awful policy.”

Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll

Lawmakers are demanding to know why Tsarnaev, who has confessed to being involved in the planting of two bombs near the Boston Marathon finish line, was read his Miranda rights in the middle of his interrogation.

“That’s just mind-boggling,” Giuliani said in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

“This guy is kind of telling you about how he’s coming to New York and do a bombing, a judge walks in and we cut off the questioning?” Giuliani said. “What are we, crazy?”

Tsarnaev had been under interrogation for about 16 hours in his hospital room before a magistrate and representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office entered the room and read him his Miranda rights. He then stopped talking, according to sources briefed on the interrogation.

Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, said rules need to be loosened for law-enforcement officials who are conducting terror probes.

“One of the FBI agents said he thought it would be illegal to keep the guy on the list. Of course, there’d be nothing illegal about it,” said Giuliani, who was mayor of the Big Apple at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“Some of the explanations that I’m getting make me very nervous that the FBI is erring on the side of caution, when I want them to err on the side of safety.”

Giuliani also criticized the administration of Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick for refusing to release records of welfare payments the Boston terror bombings may have received, saying it was essential information in determining how they financed their activities.

“What possible privacy interest do you have in that?” he asked. “They either got welfare or they didn’t get welfare. And that would also be important to how were they financed.

“I’d like to know how much they were getting in welfare. A trip to Russia for six months is a pretty darn expensive proposition. I’ve wondered, was anybody financing them?”

While federal law-enforcement officials can subpoena the records for their ongoing investigation, Giuliani said the only reason Massachusetts is keeping the records private is to avoid embarrassment.

“I can’t figure out what the heck the privacy interest is, except maybe an embarrassment that by mistake, Massachusetts was giving welfare to potential terrorists,” he said.

Meanwhile, Rogers said he will be demanding answers from Attorney General Eric Holder about the decision to Mirandize the baby-face bomb suspect.

“We can’t have, in a case like this, the judiciary deciding, because it’s on TV and it might look bad for them … that they were going to somehow intercede in this,” the Michigan Republican told MSNBC.

“It’s confusing, it is horrible, [a] God-awful policy, and dangerous to the greater community,” said Rogers. “We have got to get to the bottom of this, and we’ve got to fix it right now.”

He said the Justice Department has “a lot of explaining to do.”

According to the Department of Justice, prosecutors, the federal defender, a court reporter, the U.S. Marshal Service, and the hospital all coordinated in having Tsarnaev read his rights.

Before that happened, the University of Massachusetts sophomore had reportedly told authorities that his brother, Tamerlan, 26, had only recently recruited him to be part of a plot to detonate pressure-cooker bombs at the marathon's finish line and that they planned to go on to detonate more bombs in New York City.

Tamerlan was killed in a police shootout on Friday last week.

Lawmakers have long disagreed over whether to read terrorism suspects their rights after they are captured in the United States. Some prominent Republican lawmakers have called for Tsarnaev to be considered an enemy combatant, but the Obama administration opted to try him in civilian criminal court proceedings instead.

The Supreme Court created a public safety exemption to the Miranda warning almost 30 years ago, meaning suspects can be interrogated if the public could be in danger, but Rogers said he still wants to know why the FBI's interrogation was interrupted.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia said he favors asking a suspect questions about who else may have been involved in a terror plot, whether there are future attacks in the works, or if other weapons have been discovered.

Most courts will not admit statements made before suspects are officially made aware of their rights, and if cases are to be tried in a civilian, rather than military court, a suspect must be read the warning.


Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
Even some Democrats have questioned the decision. Rep. Adam Schiff of California said, “I would have thought the public safety exception would have allowed more time for the questioning of the suspect prior to the arraignment and/or advising of rights.”

The issue has come up in other cases, including in 2010, when Holder ordered “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be read his rights. He eventually was sentenced to life in prison.

Tsarnaev has been moved to a prison hospital at Fort Devens, Mass., the U.S. Marshals Service said Friday. He continues to recover from numerous gunshot wounds. The federal prison where he is housed specializes in inmates who need long-term medical or mental health care, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

City Plan Sets 21 as Legal Age to Buy Tobacco

Victor J. Blue for The New York Times
A store in Bushwick, Brooklyn, that sells cigarettes. The legal age for buying them should be raised to 21, some city leaders say.

The age to legally buy cigarettes in New York City would rise to 21 from 18 under a proposal that officials unveiled on Monday, a measure that would give New York the strictest limits of any major American city.
 
 
Jessette Bautista, who began smoking at 17, was surprised by the proposal. “What happened to freedom?” she asked.

Readers’ Comments

"We can send our 18 year children to fight in wars, yet Bloomberg/Quinn want to ban them from smoking cigarettes that are harmful?"
Earl Horton, Harlem,Ny
 
The proposal would make the age for buying cigarettes and other tobacco products the same as for purchasing liquor, but it would not prohibit people under 21 from possessing or even smoking cigarettes.
      
It is the latest effort in a persistent campaign to curb smoking that began soon after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took office, with bans on smoking in restaurants and bars that expanded more recently to parks, beaches, plazas and other public places.
      
But this latest proposal, announced by Dr. Thomas A. Farley, the city’s health commissioner, and Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker and a mayoral candidate, puts New York squarely into the middle of a debate over the rights and responsibilities of young people, and it drew much skepticism. At 18, New Yorkers are old enough to fight in wars, to drive and to vote, but if the smoking restriction passed they would be prohibited from deciding whether to take the risk of smoking.
      
Ms. Quinn and Dr. Farley defended the proposal, saying that people typically make the transition from experimental smoking to regular smoking around age 20, and that by making cigarettes harder to obtain at a young age the city would make it less likely that people would become lifelong addicts.
       
“With this legislation, we’ll be targeting the age group at which the overwhelming majority of smokers start,” Ms. Quinn said in announcing the legislation at a City Hall news conference.
      
While officials focused on the public health aspect of the age limitation, the announcement was also infused with political overtones. In the past, Mr. Bloomberg had always been on hand, standing in front of television cameras to boldly promote public health initiatives. But on Monday he was nowhere to be seen, allowing Dr. Farley to represent the administration and seemingly ceding the spotlight to Ms. Quinn, who initiated the proposal.
      
By proposing the legislation, Ms. Quinn, a Democrat who polls show is a leading candidate to succeed Mr. Bloomberg, appeared to be positioning herself to follow in his footsteps as a mayor who would make public health a top priority.
      
Mr. Bloomberg, in fact, had opposed a similar measure in 2006, arguing that raising the age to buy cigarettes would actually make smoking more enticing to teenagers. But he now believes differently, a spokeswoman said, because the city’s youth smoking rate has plateaued and recent research has suggested a correlation between a higher smoking age and lower smoking rates.
      
In interviews, many New Yorkers were largely critical of the proposal, viewing it as an attack on the maturity and self-determination of young people.
      
“By 18, people are responsible enough to make their own decisions,” said Erik Malave, 23, a music production student at City College. “Forcing people to make themselves healthy tends not to work.”
      
Mr. Malave, from Yonkers, has been smoking for about three years, and he breaks for a cigarette four or five times a day. He also said that he thought the law would be a waste of time, and that young people would easily acquire cigarettes if they wanted them. “When I turned 18, I bought cigarettes for all my friends who weren’t 18,” he said.
      
Jessette Bautista, 21, began smoking when she was 17 and had no problem getting cigarettes from friends who would buy packs for her. She was surprised to hear about a proposal to change the legal age to purchase cigarettes. “What happened to freedom?” she said.
      
While alcohol may impair a person’s judgment and so warrants a law that requires partakers to be 21 or older, Ms. Bautista said, cigarettes do not alter a person’s state of mind. “Cigarettes will not intoxicate you the same way as alcohol,” she said. “It will not put you under any influence.”
      
Under the proposal, the buyer would not be violating the law, but the seller would be. Fines and other penalties for selling cigarettes to minors would remain as they are now and would be imposed on the sellers, not the buyers or their parents.
      
Asked whether the proposal would infantilize young people, Ms. Quinn said that age 21 “seems to me to track very much with a point we have marked in society” about when people are capable of making decisions about certain potentially risky behaviors like drinking.
      
She said there was “clear data” that 80 percent of smokers started before age 21, adding, “We have an ability to intervene on that and make a difference.”
      
Dr. Farley lamented that after 10 years of decline, the youth smoking rate in the city had stalled at 8.5 percent in 2007, with 20,000 public high school students currently smoking. The rate of smoking among adults has declined from 21.5 percent in 2002 to 14.8 percent in 2011, a 31 percent decrease. In the past, city officials have suggested that public education campaigns have been effective in persuading many young people never to start smoking.
      
The Council is considering a Bloomberg proposal to require retailers to keep tobacco products where customers cannot see them, which the mayor said would shield children from tobacco marketing and keep people from buying cigarettes on impulse.
      
In pushing their latest antismoking initiative, city officials cited a 2010 study in England showing that smoking among 16- to 17-year-olds dropped by 30 percent after the legal age of sale for cigarettes was raised to 18 from 16 in 2007.
      
The New York proposal has to be approved by the Council and signed by the mayor, but its enactment is likely since it is being promoted by Ms. Quinn and is supported by Mr. Bloomberg.
The smoking age is 18 in most of the country, but some states have made it 19. Some counties have also adopted 19, including Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island. Needham, Mass., a suburb of Boston, raised the smoking age to 21 in 2005.
      
California and Texas have been at the forefront of the fight to raise the tobacco sale age to 21, but have been stymied by fears of lost tax revenue. Ms. Quinn argued that health care savings would more than make up for any potential tax revenue losses.
      
New York officials estimated that raising the age to 21 would reduce the smoking rate among 18- to 20-year-olds by 55 percent, and by two-thirds among 14- to 17-year-olds.
Sheelagh McNeill and Julie Turkewitz contributed reporting.Sheelagh McNeill and Julie Turkewitz contributed reporting.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

North Korea demands US withdrawal from peninsula before resuming talks

Pyongyang wants withdrawal of all UN sanctions and US pledge not to engage in 'nuclear war practice' with South
South Korean soldiers
South Korean soldiers take part in a drill in Sejong. Photograph: Kim Jae-Hwan/AFP/Getty Images
North Korea has issued a detailed statement on its terms for dialogue with the United States, after weeks of tensions.

The demands from the North's top military body include the withdrawal of all UN sanctions imposed due to Pyongyang's nuclear and missile tests, and a US pledge not to engage in "nuclear war practice" with the South. It said denuclearisation of the peninsula should begin with the withdrawal of US weapons.

Seoul was swift to dismiss the North's conditions as incomprehensible and illogical. The foreign ministry spokesman Cho Tai-young said: "We again strongly urge North Korea to stop this kind of insistence that we cannot totally understand and go down the path of a wise choice."
The Japanese news agency Kyodo said the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, had called for increased pressure on the North.

Leonid Petrov, an expert on the North at the Australian National University, said of the North's statement: "It's a good sign, they are prepared to negotiate, but they are demanding an exorbitant and impermissibly high price … The game will continue."

Pyongyang has issued threats against Seoul and Washington, withdrawn workers from an industrial complex it runs with the South and appears to have prepared for a possible missile test. It was angered by the tightening of sanctions over its third nuclear test in February and joint US-South Korean military drills.

"Dialogue and war cannot co-exist," the North's national defence commission said in a statement carried by the official news agency KCNA on Thursday. "If the United States and the puppet South have the slightest desire to avoid the sledge-hammer blow of our army and the people … and truly wish dialogue and negotiations, they must make the resolute decision."

It said the UN resolutions imposing sanctions had been "fabricated with unjust reasons". "The denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula can begin with the removal of the nuclear war tools dragged in by the US and it can lead to global nuclear disarmament," it added.

South Korea's president, Park Geun-hye, told foreign diplomats on Wednesday: "We must break the vicious cycle of holding negotiations and providing assistance if [North Korea] makes threats and provocations, and again holding negotiations and providing assistance if there are threats and provocations."

In Washington, John Kerry insisted: "I have no desire as secretary of state and the president has no desire to do the same horse trade, or go down the old road."

Barack Obama earlier sent a similar message, suggesting the North was likely to engage in more "provocative behaviour" and warning: "You don't get to bang … your spoon on the table and somehow you get your way."

But Kerry has said the US is prepared to reach out if the North shows it is serious about meeting previous commitments.

Petrov added: "I would predict the status quo will prevail. North Korea won't be recognised as a nuclear state; the US will continue its joint military drills; periodically, tensions will escalate, probably once or twice a year."

The North Koreans may be able to set a higher price than in the past, he suggested. "It looks like their successful nuclear test [in February] and [rocket] launches changed the rules of the game."

Stephen Guy Hardin: Envelope tests positive for ricin at Washington ma...

Stephen Guy Hardin: Envelope tests positive for ricin at Washington ma...: Envelope tests positive for ricin at Washington mail facility By Mike Brooks and Dana Bash, CNN updated 6:47 PM EDT, Tue April 16, 201...

Friday, April 12, 2013

Obama Budget Opens Rift for Democrats on Social Benefits

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Obama discussed his budget for the 2014 fiscal year in the Rose Garden Wednesday. Members of both parties found provisions not to like in it.
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s new budget has opened a debate over what it means to be a progressive Democrat in an age of austerity and defines him as a president willing to take on the two pillars of his party — Medicare and Social Security — created by Democratic presidents.

"The president's budget is not a mortal wound. It mediates between the out-of-bounds Ryan budget and the Democrats' center left offer."
Occupy Government, Oakland
 
By his gamble on Wednesday in proposing budgetary concessions to Republicans on Social Security, the 1935 creation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Medicare, the legacy of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Mr. Obama has provoked angry supporters on his left to ask whether he is a progressive at all.
      
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, Richard Trumka, in a blistering statement, called the proposed changes “wrong and indefensible.” An e-mail from Representative Alan Grayson, a liberal from Florida, was headlined “President’s Budget Breaks Promise to Seniors.”
      
But to Mr. Obama, cost-saving changes in the nation’s fastest-growing domestic programs are more progressive than simply allowing the entitlement programs for older Americans to overwhelm the rest of the budget in future years.
      
Even so, he emphasized that his support is contingent on Republicans agreeing to higher taxes from the wealthy and new spending, in areas like infrastructure, to create jobs.
      
The president’s views put him at the head of a small but growing faction of liberals and moderate Democrats who began arguing several years ago that unless the party agrees to changes in the entitlement benefit programs — which are growing unsustainably as baby boomers age and medical prices rise — the programs’ costs will overwhelm all other domestic spending to help the poor, the working class and children.
      
“The math on entitlements is just not sustainable,” said Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, one of the few Democrats to unequivocally endorse Mr. Obama’s budget. “And if you’re not finding ways to reform, where do you squeeze? Well, then you squeeze early-childhood programs, you squeeze Head Start, you squeeze education and veterans.”
      
“There’s nothing progressive about — and no business argument for — a business or any other enterprise to invest less than 5 percent of its revenues on the education of its work force, its infrastructure and its R & D,” Mr. Warner added. “And that’s what we’re doing.”
      
The president’s $3.77 trillion budget, with a mix of deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases and new spending to spur the economy, projects a $744 billion deficit for the 2014 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That is down from the $973 billion shortfall projected for this fiscal year, after four years of post-recession deficits exceeding $1 trillion.
      
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic minority leader, has arranged for House Democrats on Thursday to hear a debate on Mr. Obama’s proposed change in the cost-of-living formula that determines Social Security benefits. The debate will pit the A.F.L.-C.I.O. counsel,
Damon Silvers, who opposes the change in the formula, and Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which has long supported changes to entitlement programs as part of a bipartisan deal to protect other federal spending on, for example, antipoverty programs, the nation’s infrastructure and education.
      
It has been evident from his first months in office that the pragmatist in Mr. Obama has made him sympathetic to the thinking of Mr. Greenstein and others. In 2009, Mr. Obama considered proposing the change in the cost-of-living formula for Social Security until Democratic Congressional leaders objected.
      
But now in his fifth budget and the first of his second term, he has decided over some advisers’ objections to make that proposal — and his brand of pragmatic liberalism — official.
      
Under the president’s budget, the government would shift in 2015 from the standard Consumer Price Index — used to compute cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other benefits and to set income-tax brackets — to what is called a “chained C.P.I.” The new formulation would slow the increase in benefits and raise income tax revenues by putting some taxpayers into higher brackets sooner, for total savings of $230 billion over 10 years.
      
While many economists say the new formula is more accurate, opponents say it does not adequately reflect the out-of-pocket health care expenses that burden older Americans. All Social Security beneficiaries would be affected, but Mr. Obama proposes that at age 76 they would get gradual benefit increases to offset the depletion of their private assets or pensions.
      
In the president’s bid to revive bipartisan talks, his budget includes other proposals from his last compromise offer, made in December to Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, before their private deficit-reduction negotiations collapsed. The president’s budget would save $400 billion from Medicare over a decade, mostly from reductions to hospitals and other health care providers, but also through benefit and premium changes.
      
The budget’s total 10-year savings would replace the $1.2 trillion in indiscriminate across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration, that took effect March 1 after Mr. Obama and Republican leaders failed to agree on alternative deficit-reduction measures.
      
By this budget, Mr. Obama has forced the party’s internal fiscal debate to go public to a degree not seen since President Bill Clinton pushed Democrats toward the political center. Until now, attention has focused on the Republicans’ postelection divisions over defining conservatism.
      
Mr. Clinton’s second-term effort to address the long-term finances of Medicare and Social Security was aborted by his impeachment and then by unexpected budget surpluses that relieved the fiscal pressure to change the programs. Ultimately, Mr. Clinton left office better known for his policy of “Save Social Security First” — that is, save the surpluses to pay the approaching costs of the baby boomers’ retirement rather than use them to cut taxes, as Republicans wanted.
      
Democratic Congressional leaders were muted in their support for the president’s plan and were troubled that Mr. Obama had made his overture to Republicans without any sign that they would compromise in return.
      
Their political concerns seemed to be validated when Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, the head of the House Republicans’ campaign committee, said on CNN that the budget was “a shocking attack on seniors.” His words were interpreted as a signal that in the 2014 midterm elections Republican candidates will again accuse Democrats of trying to cut Medicare and Social Security, even though Congressional Republicans led by Mr. Boehner have demanded Social Security and Medicare cuts throughout budget talks of the past two years.
      
The C.P.I change in particular “was the speaker’s idea,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “And for them to turn around and attack the president for including their proposal in his budget is so hypocritical.”
      
Mr. Boehner, who was dismissive before the budget’s release, tempered his criticisms afterward. He told reporters that Mr. Obama “does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget.”
       
Some Senate Republicans were complimentary, and later Mr. Obama had a dozen of them to dinner at the White House to discuss the budget, immigration and gun controls. He hopes to persuade enough of them to compromise with Senate Democrats on the issues, putting pressure on House Republicans to go along.