Tag Archives: dallas

We Actually Know a Lot About How Trump Would Handle Policing and Race

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump has been routinely criticized for sharing scant details about the policies he hopes to implement as president. But although he’s drawn little attention for it, there is one area where Trump has gotten pretty specific: policing.

In an interview with the Guardian US last October, Trump said he supported federal funding for body camera programs at local police departments. And in a Facebook post following the mass shooting of police officers in Dallas and the shooting deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile at the hands of police, he made appeals to both sides of the debate. He called for the restoration of “law and order” while acknowledging that “the senseless and tragic deaths of two people in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done.” At a rally in Indiana, he pondered whether police officers had shot Sterling and Castile because of poor training.

Still, Trump has called the Black Lives Matter movement “divisive.” And of course there’s the time he threatened to fight members of the movement if they tried to disrupt his rallies. After a Black Lives Matter protester who did just that was assaulted by several Trump supporters last November, the Republican candidate condoned the attack. “Maybe he should have been roughed up,” Trump said. (He has been endorsed by the New England Police Benevolent Association and by conservatives with a range of views on criminal justice reform.)

So what does Trump actually think about the state of policing in America? In fact, he answered in his own words in response to a 33-question survey sent to him by the Fraternal Order of Police earlier this year. The self-proclaimed “law and order” candidate also met with the FOP earlier this month to seek its endorsement. (The FOP also sent the survey to Hillary Clinton, who did not respond.)

Here’s what Trump’s answers to the survey revealed:

Police militarization: Trump said he would repeal President Barack Obama’s executive order banning local police departments from receiving certain kinds of equipment through a federal program that transfers surplus military equipment to local and state police forces. Obama signed the order in May 2015 after public outcry over law enforcement’s aggressive response to protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, in late 2014. (Obama recently said he will review each item on the “controlled equipment list” after law enforcement officials said they needed some of it in the wake of targeted attacks on police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge.) Trump also said he believes police should receive federal grants with no strings attached. Currently, departments can lose funding if they don’t meet incident reporting requirements or other mandates.

Racial profiling: “Current law and judicial precedent provide a great deal of civil rights protection,” Trump wrote. But he also noted that he would sign anti-racial-profiling legislation like the proposed End Racial Profiling Act “if there is a clear need for edification for certain civil rights that are being violated.” Trump responded to the FOP questionnaire months before the Department of Justice’s damning new report on racist policing in Baltimore. But there were already similarly outrageous DOJ reports on police departments in Cleveland, Ferguson, and Newark, New Jersey, the products of more than a dozen reviews and investigations into local police departments launched by the DOJ under the Obama administration.

Demographic data collection: Trump said he believes police departments “should be aware of the circumstances” of encounters between their officers and the public. If keeping information on the races of people interacting with police “is determined to improve policing,” Trump said, “then that should be part of the protocols officers use.” A major issue raised by police reform advocates in recent years has been the lack of reliable federal data on police shootings and the races of people killed by law enforcement. But the determination of whether to collect such data should be left to department administrators and local elected officials, Trump said.

“Blue lives matter”: Trump said he would push for harsher penalties for crimes against federal law enforcement officers and that he would consider signing bipartisan legislation to make any crime against a police officer a hate crime. (I reported on why that’s a bad idea earlier this year.) But he said he would not sign legislation to label murders or attempted murders a federal offense if the victim is a law enforcement official employed by an agency that receives federal funding. Doing so, Trump said, would effectively make state and local law enforcement agencies—which receive funding from the feds—an extension of the federal government, “which was not intended at the founding” of the nation.

Asked whether he would support legislation to limit the damages a plaintiff could win in compensation for injuries sustained as the result of an arrest after the commission of a felony or violent crime, Trump responded in a fashion more typical of his general lack of specificity. He stated that he would “sign any legislation that is in the best interest of America and Americans.”

The FOP announced that it will vote on which candidate to endorse later this fall.

More here – 

We Actually Know a Lot About How Trump Would Handle Policing and Race

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Actually Know a Lot About How Trump Would Handle Policing and Race

Obama: An Attack on Law Enforcement Is an Attack on All of Us

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After an ambush on police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that left at least three officers dead and three others wounded Sunday morning, President Barack Obama spoke at the White House today, saying it is up to “all of us” to create a united front against violence.

“We as a nation have to be loud and clear that nothing justifies violence against law enforcement. An attack against law enforcement is an attack against all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible,” said Obama. “This has happened far too often.”

Obama expressed his condolences to the families of the officers killed in Baton Rouge and called on Americans to “temper our words and open our hearts” ahead of the upcoming conventions. This is the 16th time Obama has addressed the nation after a shooting.

“We have to make sure that our best selves are reflected across America, not our worst. That is up to us,” said Obama. “Only we can prove, in our own actions and words, that we will not be divided, even if we have to do it again and again and again. That’s how this country gets united. That’s how we bring this country together.”

The shooting in Baton Rouge comes just 10 days after a deadly shooting in Dallas that killed five police officers and injured seven others. Baton Rouge has been the site of several protests since the fatal shooting of Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man who was selling CDs outside a convenience store when he was shot by the police. On July 13, the ACLU of Louisiana along with other community groups filed a lawsuit against the Baton Rouge Police Department, alleging that police officers used excessive force against protesters.

Watch Obama’s full statement below:

Source:  

Obama: An Attack on Law Enforcement Is an Attack on All of Us

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: An Attack on Law Enforcement Is an Attack on All of Us

Watch Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Call Black Lives Matter Protesters "Hypocrites" After Dallas Shooting

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick directly blamed Black Lives Matter protesters for putting the lives of police officers in danger—actions he said contributed to Thursday night’s attack in Dallas that killed five officers.

“Too many in the general public who aren’t criminals but have a big mouth are creating situations like we saw last night,” an emotional Patrick said during an interview with Fox News on Friday. He later added, “All those protesters last night, they ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to turn around and protect them—what hypocrites!”

“I do blame people on social media with their hatred toward police,” he said. While pointing out that last night’s Dallas protest was peaceful, Patrick said, “I do blame former Black Lives Matter protests.”

Patrick’s comments follow a starkly different public statement calling for unity that he issued overnight:

Patrick’s comments come at a time of heated rhetoric in the wake of the Dallas attack. Prominent critics of the Black Lives Matter movement have gone so far as to declare the country is at “war.”

Read the article – 

Watch Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Call Black Lives Matter Protesters "Hypocrites" After Dallas Shooting

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Call Black Lives Matter Protesters "Hypocrites" After Dallas Shooting

Attorney General Loretta Lynch Urges Americans to Reject Violence After Dallas Police Ambush

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Friday called on Americans to come together and reject violence in the wake of the “unfathomable tragedy” that occurred overnight in Dallas, where five police officers were killed and six wounded in a police ambush.

“Americans across our country are feeling a sense of helplessness and uncertainly and fear,” Lynch said in a press conference. “These feelings are understandable and they are justified, but the answer must not be violence. The answer is never violence.”

She encouraged Americans to take “peaceful and collaborative” steps towards building trust between law enforcement officials and communities. Echoing President Obama’s remarks on the tragedy just hours earlier, Lynch said the attack should spark a serious consideration about the easy access with which individuals seeking to inflict harm are able to obtain weapons.

Throughout her address, she urged Americans not to allow the events of this week, which included the police shooting deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, to become the “new normal in America.”

“May we turn toward each other, not against another.”

Continued:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch Urges Americans to Reject Violence After Dallas Police Ambush

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Attorney General Loretta Lynch Urges Americans to Reject Violence After Dallas Police Ambush

High-Profile Right Wingers Declare "War" in Wake of Dallas Police Shootings

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Thursday night, at least one sniper in Dallas opened fire near a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest, killing five police officers and injuring seven others. The shooting marks the deadliest attack on law enforcement in the United States since 9/11. While there has been an outpouring of grief and anger on social media, some high-profile individuals—including a former congressman and a veteran policy adviser to Republican leaders—stirred threats of violence and impending “war” against the Black Lives Matter movement.

From former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, in a post that has since been deleted:

Twitter

More from Walsh:

From Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist and radio show host:

From Frank Gaffney, president of the right-leaning Center for Security Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Ted Cruz:

The New York Post‘s front page declared “Civil War”—which quickly drew a fierce backlash.

On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh called Black Lives Matter “a terrorist group committing hate crimes”:

The full transcript of Limbaugh’s remarks: “I found a story from March, I think, of 2015, in which President Obama welcomed two founders of Black Lives Matter to the White House and commemorated them and their efforts and praised them as being better organizers than he is. And… Black Lives Matter was just exactly who they are then as who they are today. They’re a terrorist group. They’re quickly becoming a terrorist group committing hate crimes.”

Read this article – 

High-Profile Right Wingers Declare "War" in Wake of Dallas Police Shootings

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on High-Profile Right Wingers Declare "War" in Wake of Dallas Police Shootings

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

By on 24 Mar 2016commentsShare

A New York Times investigation published Thursday confirms that the National Football League’s research on player concussions was seriously flawed, undercounting diagnoses by more than 10 percent in a series of studies from 1996 to 2001. At the same time, the league appeared to engage in a systematic campaign of obfuscation and denial. Even now that the the NFL’s top health official has admitted that football and degenerative brain disorders are “certainly” linked, some NFL fans and stakeholders remain unconvinced — publicly, at least. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, for instance, said this week that “there’s no data that in any way creates a knowledge” — in other words, the jury’s still out.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the NFL’s techniques are like those employed for decades by Big Tobacco to confuse consumers over the scientific research on smoking. In fact, the Times reports, the NFL hired tobacco lawyers, advisors, and lobbyists to help them do exactly that. In the 1990s, for instance, the league employed Dorothy Mitchell, an attorney who had also represented the Tobacco Institute in lawsuits over the health effects of cigarettes and secondhand smoke.

All this sounds remarkably like another industry that we now know borrowed tactics from Big Tobacco: oil and gas. In 1996, as the world considered acting to curtail fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond said, “Scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect the global climate,” adding that “scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand climate systems and consider policy options, so there’s simply no reason to take drastic action now.”

The idea that “evolving science” means there’s no need to act is still prevalent among polluters and their political allies. “It is not unanimous among scientists that [climate change] is disproportionately manmade,” one-time presidential candidate Jeb Bush said last year. Last year, investigations by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and Columbia University uncovered how Exxon-Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute were at the cutting edge of climate change research in the 1970s, until they reversed course to create a culture of denial we know too well today.

Big Oil, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s and perhaps now the NFL since the 1990s, knew of a major problem long before it admitted to it publicly. And like the health of smokers and football players, our health and the planet’s has suffered for it.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More here: 

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, InsideClimate News, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

Now That We Know These Disturbing Numbers, Can We Trust Air Marshals?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story was originally published in ProPublica.

Seven and a half years ago, as a new reporter at ProPublica, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for all reports of misconduct by federal air marshals.

It had been several years since the U.S. government rapidly expanded its force of undercover agents trained to intervene in hijackings after 9/11. And a source within the agency told me that a number of air marshals had recently been arrested or gotten in trouble for hiring prostitutes on missions overseas.

I knew the FOIA request would take a while—perhaps a few months—but I figured I’d have the records in times for my first ProPublica project.

Instead, I heard nothing but crickets from the Transportation Security Administration.

Finally, last Wednesday, an email popped into my inbox with the data I had been fighting for since my fourth day at ProPublica.

The saga to get the air marshal data reveals a lot about the problems with FOIA, which is supposed to guarantee the public’s access to government records, as well as what happens when an agency decides to drag out the process.

Even though the Federal Air Marshal Service insists it has taken steps to build an agency steeped in professionalism with no tolerance for misconduct, it continues to face the same issues it was battling when I filed my FOIA request in 2008.

While waiting for the data, I found dozens of air marshals who had been arrested for crimes ranging from aiding a human trafficking ring to attempted murder. One air marshal used his badge to smuggle drugs past airport security while another used his to lure a young boy to his hotel room, where he sexually abused him.

Air marshals had hired prostitutes in Barcelona and gotten into a fight with security guards after patronizing a brothel in Frankfurt.

Another marshal’s in-air behavior concerned flight attendants so much that they reported it to the agency, saying “I can’t believe he is able to carry a gun!” (That officer was later convicted of bank fraud for trying to cash a $10.9 million check that he said was a settlement after he was a scratched by a friend’s cat.)

As time passed, the problems continued.

Last year, several other news outlets published troubling reports about air marshals that sound remarkably similar. A few selections: Air marshals accused of hiring prostitutes in Europe and recording the sex on their phones. Air marshals describe a “party-hearty” atmosphere. Air marshal kicked off plane after throwing a fit when he was offered only one dinner choice instead of three.

Oddly, when the TSA finally responded to my seven-year-old request, it included its own analysis of the data along with an unsolicited statement.

“The vast majority of FAMs federal air marshals are dedicated law enforcement professionals who conduct themselves in an exemplary manner,” it said. “TSA and FAMS continually strive to maintain a culture of accountability within its workforce.”

The statement also said the agency saw a “significant reduction” in misconduct cases in 2015 as a result of its initiatives. But notably, the agency only provided data through February 2012, even though in my last email exchange with the office last month I requested the entire database.

This has become standard practice for many agencies. By delaying FOIA requests for years, the TSA gets to claim the data it releases is old news. (The agency made the same claim back in 2008, which—because of the data we received recently—we now know wasn’t true.)

So what did the data tell us about misconduct by air marshals?

For starters, air marshals were arrested 148 times from November 2002 through February 2012. There were another 58 instances of “criminal conduct.”

In addition, air marshals engaged in more than 5,000 less serious incidents of misconduct, ranging from 1,200 cases of lost equipment to missing 950 flights they were supposed to protect.

Is that a lot or a little? It’s hard to say because the number of air marshals is classified and the estimates of the size of the force don’t include turnover.

The TSA says the misconduct represents just a “handful of employees.” But concerned air marshals I spoke with said they should all show sound judgment, given that air marshals are allowed to carry guns on planes and must make split-second life-and-death decisions.

Some other highlights found in our analysis of the data:

250 air marshals have been terminated for misconduct; another 400 resigned or retired while facing investigation.
Air marshals have been suspended more than 900 times, resulting in more than 4,600 days lost to misconduct.
The Washington field office had the most incidents with 530 cases, followed by New York with 471, Chicago and Dallas with 373 each and Los Angeles with 363. There were 85 cases at air marshal headquarters, highlighting that in some cases, misconduct has extended to the top brass.

After our story ran in late 2008, Robert Bray, the director of the air marshal service at the time, vowed to create a “culture of accountability” within the agency and raised the penalty for drunk driving arrests to a 30-day suspension.

We now know the number of misconduct cases remained fairly steady, about 600 a year, in the years before and after our investigation.

It’s unclear if the agency got tougher or weaker. Before the story ran, only 4 percent of air marshals who had been arrested received a suspension of 14 days or longer. After the story ran, that number jumped to 20 percent. But at the same time, a much higher percentage of arrested air marshals got off with minor discipline such as a letter of reprimand, a warning or no action at all.

After the story, I continued to talk to air marshals and pursue the FOIA request. Inspired by the Obama administration’s memo on transparency, and armed with new information that there was a specific misconduct database, I filed a second FOIA request in 2010.

This was perhaps a mistake. Rather than respond to my first request, the TSA merged it with my new request.

In 2012, the agency responded. But the TSA only released two columns —one showing allegations against air marshals, the other listing disciplinary actions taken in response. Notably, there were no dates, which would have allowed us to check if the agency’s “culture of accountability” was working.

I immediately appealed. In addition, I filed another FOIA request for the entire database—”all columns and rows.”

Two more years passed. Meanwhile, air marshal director Bray himself became embroiled in a misconduct investigation. A supervisor was accused of obtaining free and discounted guns from the air marshals’ weapons supplier and providing them to top officials, including Bray, for their personal use. In 2014, Bray retired.

Around that time, I partially won my appeal. But the data was still incomplete.

After nearly six years, I had pretty much given up.

Until late December. That’s when an email arrived from TSA telling me my request from 2012 had been sitting in a backlog and wanting to know if I was still interested.

Indeed I was. (The TSA had asked me this question a few times during my pursuit of these records.)

A month later, I had the information I had been seeking. It only took seven years, seven months and 29 days.

Link:

Now That We Know These Disturbing Numbers, Can We Trust Air Marshals?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, ProPublica, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Now That We Know These Disturbing Numbers, Can We Trust Air Marshals?

Meet the Megadonors Bankrolling Jeb Bush’s Campaign

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jeb Bush knows it doesn’t look good if a candidate appears to get most of his financial support from a small group of wealthy donors. Earlier this spring, he asked donors to try not to give checks of more than $1 million to his super-PAC, and when the group announced its total haul for the first six months of the year, it took pains to emphasize that 9,400 of its more than 9,900 contributors had donated less than $25,000.

But now it’s going to be a lot harder for anyone to think of the Bush super-PAC—which completely dwarfs his campaign in terms of financial resources—as anything but driven by extremely wealthy donors.

This morning, the Right to Rise super-PAC filed its first disclosure reports, confirming that it had indeed raised $103 million in the first six months of the year. That is an unprecedented amount, but what’s really news is the distribution of the donations. It does appear that only about 500 donors gave more than $25,000 to the super-PAC, but donations of less than $25,000 accounted for just $21.7 million of the total. On the other end of the spectrum, 23 people gave more than $1 million to the super-PAC, contributing a total of $27.3 million.

The size of the donations is shocking. Despite the growing public perception that super-PACs are playgrounds for millionaires, the number of people who have ever given $1 million to political causes in their lifetimes is small. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign finance organization (where I used to work), prior to this election cycle, just 475 individuals had ever given $1 million or more cumulatively since 1989, when it began keeping track of the data. Given the seven-figure donations that have already been reported for other super-PACs in the last week, the number is probably well over 500 people now, and the Right to Rise super-PAC is responsible for many of them.

The fact that only about 0.04 percent of Americans gave more than $2,600 last election cycle means that even most of the donors who gave less than $25,000 were already elite in terms of political donations. But with these latest numbers, even the under-$25,000 contributors begins to look like small donors by comparison.

Among Bush’s top donors are people with an interest in some of the top foreign policy debates right now. Miguel Fernandez, a private equity executive who chipped in $3 million, the largest contribution to the super-PAC, was a refugee from Cuba. Bush has slammed President Obama’s rapprochement with the Castro regime. Hushang Ansary was the Iranian ambassador to the US before the Iranian Revolution; he and his wife each donated $1 million. Bush has likewise opposed Obama’s nuclear-containment deal with Iran.

The list of top donors has some expected names, the dependable rainmakers who have long fueled the Bush family. Included among the top donors are big Texas names like oilmen T. Boone Pickens and Ray Hunt, as well as the widow of Harold Simmons, a Dallas chemical magnate who is one of the largest political donors of all time and who was a major source of money for Karl Rove’s various fundraising efforts over the years.

There are also a number of donors who are not people—something that could not have happened before the super-PAC era, or at least not on the same scale. NextEra Energy, Florida’s electric utility, donated $1 million to the super-PAC. That donation itself is unusual, given that publicly traded corporations have tended to avoid giving money to super-PACs, though they may legally do so after the Citizens United court decision in 2010. The US Sugar Corporation Charitable Trust donated $505,000—possibly a first for charities, which are generally excluded from involving themselves in politics.

Not all of the corporate donors are quite as transparent. One $1 million donation came from a shell corporation called Jasper Reserve LLC. On the disclosure forms, the company lists a Charleston, West Virginia address belonging to a law firm that has represented numerous coal companies over the years. The company appears to be registered in Delaware, effectively blocking any information about who founded it or runs it.

Excerpt from: 

Meet the Megadonors Bankrolling Jeb Bush’s Campaign

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Megadonors Bankrolling Jeb Bush’s Campaign

That Time Mike Huckabee Preached Against Booze, Sex, and Monty Python

Mother Jones

Good luck tracking down sermons from Mike Huckabee’s two decades as a Baptist preacher. The GOP presidential candidate, who once started a television station out of his church to broadcast his sermons, kept those tapes under wraps during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Among the handful of sermons open to the public is a partial recording of a 1979 sermon in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, at the congregation Huckabee had tended as a pastor a decade earlier when he was a student at Ouachita Baptist University. The sermon, included in the school’s special collections, catches a young Huckabee confident in his beliefs and fluid in his rhetoric, riffing from one New Testament passage to the next in critiquing the most “pleasure-mad society that probably has ever been since Rome and Greece, in the days when there was just absolute chaos and debauchery on the streets”:

It’s a sad thing but it’s true in this country: 10,000 people a year are directly killed by alcohol in this country. Ten thousand. But we license liquor. There’s one person a year on average killed by a mad dog, just one. But you know what we do? We license liquor, and we shoot the mad dog. That’s an insane logic! But it’s what’s happening, it’s because we love pleasure more than anything else. A lot of times we look around our society we see this problem we see pornography and prostitution and child abuse and all the different things that we’re all so upset about. You know why they’re there? You know why they’re in the communities? You say “because the Devil”—they’re there because of us.

It was dark days indeed, he argued, when “an x-rated theater can open up down the street from a church.” Above all, Huckabee was upset with Monty Python’s 1979 movie, Life of Brian. Huckabee was hardly alone in condemning Life of Brian, which follows the story of a Jewish man, Brian, who is mistaken for the Messiah because he was born on the same day as Jesus. The film was banned in Ireland; picketed in New Jersey; denounced by a coalition of Christian and Jewish leaders; and canceled in Columbia, South Carolina after a last-minute intervention from Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond. (On the other hand, the movie does have a score of 96 at Rotten Tomatoes.) Per Huckabee:

There was a time in this country when a movie like The Life of Brian which, I just read—thank God the theaters in Little Rock decided not to show, but it’s showing all over the Fort Worth–Dallas area, which is a mockery, which is a blasphemy against the very name of Jesus Christ, and I can remember a day even as young as I am when that would not have happened in this country or in the city in the South.

But friend, it’s happening all over and no one’s blinking an eye, and we can talk about how the devil’s moved in and the devil’s moved in but what’s really happened is God’s people have moved out and made room for it. We’ve put up the for sale sign and we’ve announced a very cheap price for what our lives really are. We’ve sold our character, we’ve sold our convictions, we’ve compromised we’ve sold out and as a result we’ve moved out the devil’s moved in and he’s set up shop. And friend he’s praying on our own craving for pleasure.

No word on whether Huckabee will defund the Ministry of Silly Walks if elected.

Link to article:

That Time Mike Huckabee Preached Against Booze, Sex, and Monty Python

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on That Time Mike Huckabee Preached Against Booze, Sex, and Monty Python

Even the Voting Problems Are Bigger in Texas

Mother Jones

Battleground Texas, the effort by Obama vets to turn the nation’s biggest red state blue, got off to a rough start last fall when Democratic gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis lost by 21 points. But now, as the organization looks to rebuild toward its long-term goal of mobilizing the state’s long-dormant Democratic base, its leaders are doing a public dissection of what went wrong—and what to do differently next time.

In a feature published by Texas Monthly in late February, Robert Draper broke down the organization’s financial struggles and turf wars, but also the difficulties Battleground faced with the field of battle of itself. The newcomers, Draper explained, had no idea just how hard it would be enroll new voters while complying with the state’s Byzantine rules:

For a group like Battleground to register Texans to vote, they themselves must be Texas residents, must be eligible to vote and—in a wrinkle that is unique to Texas—must be deputized by each county where they’re registering. In some of the state’s 254 counties, going through the requisite voter registration training course can be done online; in others, certification is offered only once a month, at the county courthouse during work hours. But as the Battleground team came to learn, the complications only begin once a deputy registrar is certified. If a Dallas County-certified volunteer registers someone who says they live in that county when in fact they live just across the border in Tarrant County, then the deputy registrar has committed a misdemeanor. If the volunteer turns in the completed registration forms more than five days after they’ve been collected, that’s also a misdemeanor.

“When we first heard about these laws,” recalled executive director Jenn Brown, “I said, ‘There’s no way this is the law—this is unbelievable.'”

The organization has released a 36-page report documenting the findings of its voter-protection program. There’s plenty to chew over, some of it anecdotal, some of it not. In Texas’ five largest counties—the urban, majority-minority areas heavily targeted by Democrats—provisional ballots were rejected more than four times as often as the national average. (Only one in four provisional votes was accepted.) That’s significant because a variety of factors on the most recent Election Day—like the debut of a voter ID requirement that affected as many as 600,000 eligible voters, and a breakdown of the state’s voter registration portal—made it much more likely that citizens who showed up at the polls had to fill out provisional ballots.

The report highlights another inconsistency in the state’s voter law—what happens when you move:

Unfortunately, although more than one in 10 Americans move annually, Texas law requires voters to completely re-register after moving between counties within the state. If a voter fails to do so, her ability to vote is dependent upon a seemingly irrelevant factor—whether that voter casts a ballot during Early Voting or on Election Day. If a voter has moved to a new county and the voter rolls have not been updated, she is only permitted to vote a so-called limited ballot for statewide offices, and can only do so during Early Voting or by mail. On Election Day, by contrast, that same voter cannot vote at all. We received more than a hundred reports involving voters who had recently moved within Texas, yet whose address had not been updated on the voter rolls.

This isn’t Battleground’s attempt to explain away that 21-point stomping, and there’s plenty of debate on that in the Texas Monthly piece. But it’s a revealing look at what’s on the organizers’ minds as they retool for 2016 and beyond.

Read the full report here:

dc.embed.loadNote(‘//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1681791-voting-in-texas-in-2014-1/annotations/206328.js’);

This article is from:

Even the Voting Problems Are Bigger in Texas

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even the Voting Problems Are Bigger in Texas