Swiss tourist gang-raped in central India

By Rama Lakshmi, Saturday, March 16, 1:21 PM

NEW DELHI — A Swiss woman who was on a bicycle tour with her husband along central India’s tourist trail was gang-raped by seven men, police said Saturday, highlighting again the issue of poor safety for women in the country’s public places.

The incident served as a reminder that neither the national outcry against rape since the deadly assault on a student in New Delhi in December nor recent government efforts to impose a tough law against sexual harassment has reduced crimes against women. On the contrary, the capital witnessed 150 rapes in just the first 45 days of this year.

Police in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh said that the 39-year old Swiss woman and her husband were traveling by bicycle to the city of Agra, site of the renowned 17th-century marble mausoleum the Taj Mahal. 

 

“They had veered off the main road after sunset into the jungle and set up a tent to rest during the night,” said R.K. Gurjar, the police station chief in Datia, the small town where the incident occurred. “Nobody goes into these jungles in the night. The cattle herders, wood collectors leave before dark. They were all alone and without help. They could have stayed in the village nearby or taken shelter at a school instead.”
Gurjar said that seven men raped the woman, beat her husband with wooden sticks and stole the couple’s money, cellphone and laptop. Police said they have detained 20 men for questioning and sent eight to be identified by the couple.

Madhya Pradesh has the highest incidence of rapes in the country, with more than nine reported daily. Earlier this year, the state’s home minister, Uma Shankar Gupta, told the state legislative assembly that there had been 3,381 rapes in 2011, of which more than 300 were gang rape.
“At a time when we are trying to promote tourism, especially tiger tourism and sacred Buddhist trails in the state, this kind of horrific crime will scare tourists away,” said Pankaj Chaturvedi, director of Air Aman Travels in Bhopal, the state capital.

Last year, Madhya Pradesh attracted about 650,000 foreign tourists, a figure that tour operators wanted to increase by 20 percent this year, Chaturvedi said.

The incident in Datia occurred a day after another young woman was raped by three men in a moving bus in the city of Indore, also in Madhya Pradesh.

Benghazi Survivors ‘Told to Be Quiet’ by Obama Administration, Claims GOP Senator (Updated With Full Interview)

Mar. 15, 2013 4:56pm Jason Howerton

US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) listens during a press conference on Capitol Hill March 7, 2013 in Washington, DC. The lawmakers spoke about the reported arrest of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the son-in-law of Osama Bin Laden, who was taken into custody in the Middle East and is now allegedly being held in New York. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

The Obama administration has told the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack “to be quiet,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) alleges in an exclusive interview with Fox News.

While Congress presses for more information surrounding the infamous Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack, Graham says the survivors feel as if they can’t reach out and tell their stories. Critics of the White House’s handling of Benghazi say survivors have been completely inaccessible to Congress and the media.

When asked about Benghazi survivors, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, “I’m sure that the White  House is not preventing anyone from speaking.”

Graham told Fox News he isn’t buying it. He said, “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”

“We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress, people who were there in real time to tell the story,” the senator from South Carolina added.

More from Fox News:

Graham continued to voice concern about the inaccurate or incomplete accounts that came from the Obama administration in the days following the attack. He is among a handful of Republican lawmakers pressing for access to and more information about the survivors.

A congressional source tells Fox News that Hill staffers investigating the attack believe about 37 personnel were in Benghazi on behalf of the State Department and CIA on Sept. 11. With the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, about 33 people were evacuated. Of them, a State Department official confirmed there were three diplomatic security agents and one contractor who were injured in the assault – one seriously.

A diplomatic security source told Fox News the State Department diplomatic security agent who was in the most serious condition suffered a severe head injury during the second wave of the attack at the annex.

This agent was described as the likely State Department employee visited at Walter Reed Medical Center by Secretary of State John Kerry in January.

An official with the State Department did not deny the account of the diplomatic security source and did not comment on the agent’s injuries or whether the agent was visited by Kerry or Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state.

Other GOP congressman, like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), argue the Obama White House has offered “zero” documents on the survivors, much less provided names of the people attacked in Libya.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) on Friday said the Obama administration is “covering up something” in regards to the Benghazi attack, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Demoted: MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Moving to Weekends

Don Irvine — March 14, 2013        

     

Toward the tail end of his show last night, MSNBC host Ed Schultz announced that his primetime program will be ending and that starting next month he will be hosting a two-hour program on Saturday and Sunday nights.

And in the big finish tonight, a big personal and professional announcement. MSNBC will be expanding its weekend programming and this opens a big opportunity for ‘The Ed Show’ and my brand. I will be leaving this time slot at 8 PM ET and moving to Saturday and Sunday from 5 to 7 PM.

He also expressed his appreciation to MSNBC to allowing him the opportunity to “give voice to the voiceless.”

Schultz’s departure from primetime isn’t a complete surprise. The New York Times’ Brian Stelter reported in November that MSNBC was looking to replace Schultz to make room for Ezra Klein, though Schultz vehemently denied it at the time.

MSNBC president Phil Griffin issued a statement saying that he was “thrilled for Ed and happy to be expanding our weekend programming,” and that he was “looking forward to having Ed’s powerful voice on our network for a long time.”

While Schultz was trying to put a positive spin on the change, the truth is that moving to weekends on MSNBC is comparable to being sent to Siberia, given how few people watch the network on Saturday and Sunday.

Schultz’s show was the lowest rated primetime program on MSNBC, just edging out CNN’s Anderson Cooper in the A25-54 demographic. This, more likely, is what precipitated the switch rather than the opportunity to move to weekends as Schultz described.

MSNBC is expected to announce Schultz’s replacement today.

U.S. to Bolster Missile Defense to Deter Attack by North Korea

By THOM SHANKER

Published: March 15, 2013 30 Comments

 

WASHINGTON — The United States will deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors along the Pacific Coast to increase the Pentagon’s ability to blunt a potential attack from North Korea, in a clear response to recent tests of nuclear weapons technology and long-range missiles by the North.

 

The new deployment will increase the number of ground-based interceptors to 44 from the 30 already based in California and Alaska. While the limited missile-defense system does not offer a 100 percent guarantee of knocking down a North Korean attack, the weapons send a signal of credible deterrence to the North’s limited intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal.

       

The Navy also recently bolstered its deployment of ballistic missile defense warships in waters off the Korean Peninsula, although the vessels were sent as part of an exercise even before an increase in caustic language from the North. As part of the Foal Eagle military exercise with South Korea, the Navy has four Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers in the region.

      

In announcing the deployments at the Pentagon on Friday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel cited North Korea’s recent test of nuclear technology and long-range missiles, including the development of a mobile missile, as well as its launching of a satellite that showed increasing range for the North’s arsenal.

      

“The United States stands firm against aggression,” Mr. Hagel said.

      

The new interceptors are scheduled to be deployed by 2017, at an estimated cost of just under $1 billion.

      

Officials acknowledged that the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California had shown dubious capabilities in tests, and said the additional interceptors would be deployed only when they had proved their capability. “We have confidence in our system,” Mr. Hagel said.

This week, the Pentagon’s under secretary for policy, James N. Miller, foreshadowed the announcement in a speech to the Atlantic Council here, when he described efforts to improve early-warning radars and the command-and-control architecture of the missile-defense system based in California and Alaska.

      

“Our homeland ballistic missile-defense capabilities are intended in part to make it clear to both Iran and North Korea that if they develop ICBM’s, they will not be able to threaten the United States,” Mr. Miller said, using the initials for intercontinental ballistic missiles. “Our missile defenses will defeat them.”

      

The interceptors in California and Alaska are to blunt a long-range missile threat from North Korea. The United States also deploys Patriot Advanced Capability batteries in South Korea for defense of targets there.

      

Japan is also developing its own layered missile-defense system, which includes Aegis warships and Patriot systems, as well.

      

The United States deploys one advanced TPY-2 missile-defense tracking radar in Japan to enhance early warning across the region and toward the West Coast, and it has reached agreement to deploy a second.

Hot Mic! Who Was Caught Mocking Ted Cruz During His Senate Constitution Remarks?

Mar. 14, 2013 2:57pmBecket Adams

 

Republican Senator Ted Cruz must have ruffled a few feathers Thursday morning when he questioned Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons” ban, because during his closing remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee, someone could be heard on a hot mic mocking his speech — on two occasions.

“My fourth and final point is that the Constitution, in my opinion, should be the touchstone of everything we do,” said Sen. Cruz. “I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the constitution.”

“Thank you for the lecture,” someone can be heard muttering under their breath [at about the 20 second mark]:

Later, while driving home his point, Sen. Cruz said this:

In my view, the Constitution is particularly important when the Bill of Rights is unpopular. That was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights! When our rights are popular, we don’t need the Constitution.

“I’m tired of these condescending…” seemingly the same person can heard saying, trailing off [at about the 22 second mark]:

As of this writing, it’s unclear who was criticizing Cruz.

However, the voice does sound male and it appears likely it was a senator. Additionally, given a) Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy’s impatience with Sen. Cruz’ speech (the Democrat senator cuts off Cruz toward the end to remind him that he hasn’t been in the Senate for very long) and b) the fact that it’s not uncommon for the chairman’s microphone to be left on, it’s not unlikely Leahy could be the culprit.

How Deep Is the GOP's Shift on Gay Marriage?

 

Ohio Senator Rob Portman said Thursday, March 14, 2013 that he now supports gay marriage and says his reversal on the issue began when he learned one of his sons is gay. (J. Scott Applewhite, File/AP Photo)

 

By JORDAN FABIAN (@Jordanfabian)

March 15, 2013

 

Have the past few weeks been a tipping point for the Republican Party on the issue of gay rights?
Several top Republicans have shifted their tone and position on issues like gay marriage and benefits for same-sex couples, which the GOP's social conservative base has staunchly opposed for years. But it remains unclear whether Republican officials who have changed their mind on gay rights will be able to bring the party's base with them.


On Friday, Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) became perhaps the highest-profile Republican elected official to come out in support of gay marriage while in office.

Portman, who was in the running to become Mitt Romney's running mate last fall, shared that he changed his position after his son revealed to him he was gay.

"I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married," Portman wrote in an op-ed for the Columbus Dispatch.

J. Scott Applewhite, File/AP Photo

Ohio Senator Rob Portman said Thursday, March... View Full Size

J. Scott Applewhite, File/AP Photo

Ohio Senator Rob Portman said Thursday, March 14, 2013 that he now supports gay marriage and says his reversal on the issue began when he learned one of his sons is gay.

Portman has never been a loud critic of gay marriage, but his voting record reflected his views. He voted the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the 1990s and a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman in 2004. But he said that his son's admission two years ago caused him to reconsider his views.

"Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing [my wife] Jane and I have shared for 26 years," he wrote.

In an interview with CNN, Portman said he told Romney about his son's sexual orientation during the vice-presidential vetting process and that he consulted with former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian.

"He was a good person to talk to because he also was surprised by the news, in that case, you know, his wonderful daughter, who he loves very much. And it forced him to rethink the issue too, and over time, he changed his view on it," Portman said. "I followed his advice. You know, I followed my heart."

Portman, however, isn't ready to back federal action on gay marriage. He said that the states should be able to decide whether they want to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples.
"I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states," Portman wrote in the Dispatch.

Even this week, Portman was not the only high-profile Republican to reconsider their stance on gay rights. GOP mega-donor Foster Friess, who helped fund socially-conservative stalwart Rick Santorum's 2012 bid for president, explained that he backs certain domestic benefits for same-sex couples. Federal benefits cannot be extended to same-sex couples under the Defense of Marriage Act.
"I think it's unfair that people can't give assets to whoever they want. When I die, my assets can go to my wife," he said in an interview with BuzzFeed. "And a gay person — you ought to have a system where maybe you can just say, 'You can give your assets to anybody you want.'
"
Friess' own beliefs have also been shaped by a personal connection: his brother-in-law is gay.
"I just know that the people that I meet who are gay, including my brother-in-law and his partner, and my wife is very active in the art community, and we meet a lot of people that are gay, I think, number one, it's our responsibility to love them," he said. "That's the bottom line."

Friess did not say whether he would support gay marriage, but he said that the Republican Party should show a greater level of respect to gays and lesbians.

"When you talk about the party, that's the problem because there isn't any unified message," Friess said. "You've got people who are gay-bashers, who forget that these are human beings that need love just like all of us need love. We have to be sensitive to that."

The shift comes at a time when public opinion, and many others in the Republican Party have begun to move in favor of gay-rights.

More than 100 well-known Republicans, including top Romney campaign adviser Beth Myers, signed a legal brief last month that urges the Supreme Court to grant same-sex couples the right to wed under the Constitution. Former GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) have backed gay marriage as well.

Public opinion has also shifted in favor of gay marriage in the past two years. Fifty-one percent of Americans backed gay marriage in a November ABC News/Washington Post poll, and majorities have supported it in five straight polls since 2011. So, while personal connections may have sparked GOP officials to change their tune, it's also a sign of the changing times.

"Today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it," Portman wrote in the Dispatch. "With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan."

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay Republican group GOProud, put it more bluntly.
"There are a few in our movement who just don't like gay people," he said during a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) about gay rights on Thursday. "And in 2013, that's just not OK."

But that doesn't mean that the Republican Party and the conservative movement is ready to just abandon its long-held stances on gay rights. Majorities of self-described Democrats and independents back gay marriage, but only 31 percent of Republicans support it, while two-thirds say they oppose it, according to the ABC/Post poll.

A full-tilt embrace of gay marriage could alienate many of the social conservative voters that the Republican Party depends on in elections.

"You're gonna have to show me how you're gonna replace those 30 million social conservatives and evangelicals that are gonna leave the party" if Republicans back gay marriage," National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg said on the panel.

A bellwether of the GOP's struggle with gay rights was evident at CPAC on Thursday. Even though LaSalvia was able to participate on a panel, organizers decided not to formally invite his group to the annual confab.

While Republicans grapple with the issues, more may adopt the position of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) Rubio remains an opponent of gay marriage, but said during his speech to CPAC that states should decide their own marriage laws.

"Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in the traditional way does not make me a bigot," Rubio said.

But as conservative writers like Philip Klein and Matt Lewis noted, that's still a sign that the gay-marriage debate has shifted. Just nine years ago, President George W. Bush was pushing for a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage, which became the de facto position of the GOP
.
"[Yet,] the debate has shifted dramatically in the intervening years. That's why it was eye-opening to hear Rubio['s comments]," Klein wrote.

Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul

Posted by Jennifer Rubin on March 15, 2013 at 8:45 am

12

 

The two hottest conservatives in the Senate came to CPAC on Thursday showing their respective strengths. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appeared back to back, maybe a preview of a heavyweight fight in 2016.

Sen. Marco Rubio at CPAC-JIM LO SCALZO/EPA

Rubio was focused on the world around us and the problems conservatives can help fix. He looks at the globalized world and sees change and challenges. He tells us we can’t check out of the world but must engage economically and not leave world leadership to countries like dictatorial Communist China. Yes, he’s an internationalist, but it is internationalism grounded in American values and self-interest. In making the case for international involvement, he tied it directly to creating middle-class jobs.

He spoke directly about the middle class, about “applying our time-tested principles to the challenges of today.” Rather than take up the cause of spending cuts, he focused on economic growth, educational choice, the breakdown of the family and conservative health-care reform. He stressed (as other conservatives, such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mike Lee, have lately) community associations and civic institutions. In charming fashion he talked about a modest-income family he knew through his 7 year-old son’s football team (“They’re not freeloaders. They’re not liberals”) whom the conservative agenda should appeal. He explained how what he is offering can make a difference in that family’s life.

Rubio didn’t touch on immigration, but it was bold and cheery speech, rebuffing the suggestion that Americans have become too dependent and lazy (no 47 percent speech for him). He got big applause for the line “We don’t need new ideas. The idea is America and it still works”; yet his speech was, in fact, about new applications and insights into policy. He sounded like a traditionalist on values, but in fact his formulation was perfectly in sync with gay marriage decided on a state-by-state basis (“just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot”).

 

Rand Paul’s speech was almost entirely theoretical. It was an ode to freedom, to defending individual rights and to not losing our civil liberties in fighting our enemies. He demands that President Obama not take away our right to a jury or “drone us.” His tone is defiant. (“Mr. President, will you or won’t you defend the Constitution?”)

He was light on policy. He wants to cut the corporate income tax in half and have a flat tax while balancing the budget in five years. Other than that, he is focused on making sure the executive and judicial branches remain separate, that government get off our backs and that we limit government so liberty can expand. The mostly college-age, white crowd ate it up. He said he wants to sell his message everywhere in America, but is that a message that is going to capture the imagination of the modest-income family Rubio described?

While Paul sounds newer than many Republicans because his message is more libertarian and distinctive (he mentioned drug legalization but not same-sex marriage), the risk is that his appeal only attracts the very same people who are already Republican or libertarian. Health care and education? That is where government stops acting; what happens next is left unsaid. In the 21st century his world view expresses a nostalgic desire to be left alone and to wash our hands of messy conflicts. But is that the world in which we live and can we thrive economically without a stable and mostly free planet?
Both senators are funny and natural speakers. Both are colorful in language and culturally attuned. Both want government to tax less and spend less. But these are very different men with very different worldviews. Paul harkens back to a pre-New Deal government; Rubio wants to modernize the government we have. Paul is there to protect us against the government; Rubio is there to make it constructive.

Which way does the GOP go? That, in large part, depends on how these two figures mature and what success they have in persuading fellow conservatives of the relevance of their message. Now they complement each other, but at some point they will have to directly engage.
It strikes me as a debate that is hugely productive for conservatives, the end product of which will be a 21st brand of conservatism that can not only hold up to intellectual scrutiny but can also lead the GOP to victory and back into the Senate.