White House occupier tells one whopper after another! It’s getting to be a common characteristic of this so-called president.
Child taken from womb by social services
Exclusive: Essex social services have obtained a court order against a woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and for her child to be taken from her womb by caesarean section
A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.
Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.
The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.
The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.
The case has developed into an international legal row, with lawyers for the woman describing it as “unprecedented”.
They claim that even if the council had been acting in the woman’s best interests, officials should have consulted her family beforehand and also involved Italian social services, who would be better-placed to look after the child.
Brendan Fleming, the woman’s British lawyer, told The Sunday Telegraph: “I have never heard of anything like this in all my 40 years in the job.
“I can understand if someone is very ill that they may not be able to consent to a medical procedure, but a forced caesarean is unprecedented.
“If there were concerns about the care of this child by an Italian mother, then the better plan would have been for the authorities here to have notified social services in Italy and for the child to have been taken back there.”
The case, reported by Christopher Booker in his column in The Sunday Telegraph, raises fresh questions about the extent of social workers’ powers.
It will be raised in Parliament this week by John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP. He chairs the Public Family Law Reform Coordinating Campaign, which wants reform and greater openness in court proceedings involving family matters.
He said: “I have seen a number of cases of abuses of people’s rights in the family courts, but this has to be one of the more extreme.
“It involves the Court of Protection authorising a caesarean section without the person concerned being made aware of what was proposed. I worry about the way these decisions about a person’s mental capacity are being taken without any apparent concern as to the effect on the individual being affected.”
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is an Italian national who come to Britain in July last year to attend a training course with an airline at Stansted Airport in Essex.
She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.
She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.
She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth “to be enforced by way of caesarean section”, according to legal documents seen by this newspaper.
The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care.
In February, the mother, who had gone back to Italy, returned to Britain to request the return of her daughter at a hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court.
Her lawyers say that she had since resumed taking her medication, and that the judge formed a favourable opinion of her. But he ruled that the child should be placed for adoption because of the risk that she might suffer a relapse.
The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
Lawyers for the woman are demanding to know why Essex social services appear not have contacted next of kin in Italy to consult them on the case.
They are also upset that social workers insisted on placing the child in care in Britain, when there had been an offer from a family friend in America to look after her.
An expert on social care proceedings, who asked not to be named because she was not fully acquainted with the details of the case, described it as “highly unusual”.
She said the council would first have to find “that she was basically unfit to make any decision herself” and then shown there was an acute risk to the mother if a natural birth was attempted.
An Essex county council spokesman said the local authority would not comment on ongoing cases involving vulnerable people and children.
66-Year-Old Gay Rights Icon Arrested Over Horrific Child Porn Allegations (Graphic Content)
(Photo via the SF Examiner)
66-year-old Larry Brinkin, the first man to use the phrase “domestic partner” in a lawsuit, was arrested in California Friday in connection with felony possession of child pornography, police said. The district attorney’s office will reportedly decide Tuesday whether to file charges.
Media reports are offering more details on the horrific charges, and are also providing a picture of who Brinkin is and how he’s been viewed. The Huffington Post republished an SF Weekly post that concludes with Theresa Sparks, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission, saying:
“It’s almost incredulous, there’s no way I could believe such a thing…He’s always been one of my heroes, and he’s the epitome of human rights activist — this is man who coined phrases we use in our daily language. I support Larry 100 percent; hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.”
But while there is a certain degree of disbelief, other sources are pointing out that the evidence against Brinkin certainly warrants investigation.
Caution: what follows is extremely disturbing.
Police say that Brinkin had pornographic images, some that appear to show children as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men, in e-mail attachments linked to his account, according to a search warrant served by San Francisco police.
Representatives of America Online contacted authorities after coming across e-mail attachments from one of its subscriber’s accounts containing what they believed to be child pornography.
The Los Angeles Police Department, which was assigned to the case, traced the IP address associated with the account, Zack3737@aol.com, to Brinkin, a San Francisco resident, according to court records. Los Angeles police forwarded the case to San Francisco police.
San Francisco investigators say the account was registered to Brinkin, and that he paid for the e-mail service with his credit card.
Police provided two examples of e-mail messages from last year in which Zack3737 provides disturbing descriptions of the exploitative sexual acts.
The e-mail account also is linked to Yahoo discussion groups on sexual exploitation of young boys and girls, according to the search warrant. [Emphasis added]
Though the Huffington Post links to part of an article from the SF Weekly, the updated article has far more graphic details:
Zack3737@aol.com — whom the police allege is Brinkin — provided graphic commentary on the photos of interracial adult-child sex. Comments included “I loved especially the ni**er 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bi*ch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White D*ck Rules!”
The AOL e-mail account was also linked to Yahoo! Groups centering around discussions of child porn, according to the search warrant. Investigators say they additionally found e-mails sent from Brinkin’s now-defunct city e-mail account to email@example.com. [Emphasis added]
(Photo: YouTube Screen Shot)
The news follows the conclusion of “Pride Week,” where Brinkin has been honored in the past. After he retired from his 22-year tenure at the Human Rights Commission, the Board of Supervisors even declared the week of February 1, 2o10 “Larry Brinkin Week” in San Francisco.
Brinkin, who reportedly has a longtime partner and teenage son, was not taking questions Monday, but several blogs have risen to his defense. According to PJ Media blogger Zombie, the “Lez Get Real” blog was the first to do so, writing:
There have been incidents where people have been arrested for possessing child pornography on their computer that turned out to be malware using the computer to launder the images. This can often be difficult for people to prove, however.
Do not be surprised that anti-LGBT organizations will use this arrest against the Community; however, it is important to remember that most pedophiles identify as straight, and there are many straight people who have been arrested, charged, and convicted for possession of child pornography.
Brinkin’s co-workers and supporters seem just as stunned as everyone else by the arrest. The vice president of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations said Brinkin was always a consummate professional, and Bevan Dufty, who authored the board resolution for “Larry Brinkin Week,” said: “I have admired and respected his work for the LGBT community…I respect and am confident that there will be due process.”
Valerie Jarrett Targets Hobby Lobby as a ‘Corporate Entity’ Trying to ‘Seize a Controlling Interest’ Over Women’s Health
Nov. 27, 2013 4:42pm
White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett called out Hobby Lobby and insisted the Obamacare mandate case that will go before the Supreme Court is about whether big corporations can restrict women from having access to birth control.
Senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett accused craft store Hobby Lobby’s owners of wanting to “take the option for birth control benefits away from their employees.” (Getty Images)
“No corporate entity should be in position to limit women’s legal access to care, or to seize a controlling interest over the health care choices of women,” Jarrett wrote on the White House blog. “To take that type of power away from individuals, and to let the personal beliefs of a woman’s boss dictate her health care choices would constitute a major step backward for women’s health and self-determination.”
The case is actually a religious freedom complaint against the administration for the Health and Human Services mandate requiring insurance to provide free coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. If the plaintiffs win, it would not allow them to restrict employees from buying these products on their own, only that the employees would not get them for free.
The high court will hear the case from two family-owned companies, the Oklahoma-based chain Hobby Lobby and the Pennsylvania-based Conestoga Wood Specialties Store Corp., both of which argue that paying for employee-based coverage of these drug violates their religious freedom.
“Today, there are people trying to take this right away from women, by letting private, for-profit corporations and employers make medical decisions for their employees, based on their personal beliefs,” said Jarrett, whose blog was cross-posted on the Huffington Post.
Jarrett predicted victory in the high court, and called out just one of the plaintiffs.
“Among the first cases to reach the Supreme Court is one filed by Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain whose owners want to be able to take the option for birth control benefits away from their employees,” Jarrett said.
The two litigants in the case are not trying to restrict anyone’s freedom, said Sarah Torre, policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“This is an interesting argument from the administration that pushed a health care law that severely restrictions the ability for Americans to choose health care that aligns with the value of their family and restricting companies that could be creating jobs,” Torre told TheBlaze. “Obamacare is about restricting choices.”
“No one is suggesting a ban on anything,” Torre continued. “This is about family businesses – the Green family and the Hahns family – about their freedom to continue to create jobs while respecting their values.”
The Green family is the owner of Hobby Lobby. The Hahns family owns Conestoga Wood. Lower courts split on the decision, ruling in favor of the Green family and against the Hahns family.
You Might Be Surprised by Who’s Furious at MSNBC Over Martin Bashir’s Sarah Palin Comments
Nov. 24, 2013 6:21pm
Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik angrily criticized MSNBC and NBC News — along with network stalwarts Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd — for failing not only to punish host Martin Bashir for comments he made about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin recently, but also for not even speaking about the issue.
TV critic David Zurawik (Image source: Fox News via YouTube)
“Where are people like Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd who claim to speak for NBC News and the brand?” Zurawik asked Fox News’ Howard Kurtz on Sunday’s “MediaBuzz” program.
“Why haven’t they called Bashir out and the lack of punishment for him?”
Zurawik said Bashir’s comments and the lack of reaction from MSNBC hosts and the network as a whole is “part of the larger problem here, that the mainstream media isn’t more upset about this.”
“I’ve been complaining about the way our civic and political conversation on cable TV is debased,” he said. “And MSNBC has led that drive in a calculated way because they have no journalistic function. They have no reportorial infrastructure anymore for business reasons.”
Zurawik noted that when hosts are just “sitting in front of a camera doing opinion, you have to keep turning it up and turning it up and turning it up and being more and more extreme. And this is what we got. And no one cares! That’s what’s outrageous! Whatever you care about, whatever you feel about Sarah Palin doesn’t matter. The conversation of democracy, you can’t have this kind of stuff going on!”
As for the question of whether the media treats Sarah Palin with a double standard because she’s conservative, Zurawik said, “I think there is some of that, Howie, but the real question are where are people like Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd who claim to speak for NBC News and the brand? Why haven’t they called Bashir out and the lack of punishment for him?”
Here’s the clip from Fox News via Newbusters:
‘You’re Just a Young Punk’: 70-Year-Old Great-Grandma Gives Pistol-Whipping Thug More Than He Bargained For
Nov. 22, 2013 9:49am
Wanda Pierce, 70, pulled into her son’s driveway like she does every morning, hopping out of the driver’s seat to the passenger side and waiting for her son to emerge so the pair could carpool to work.
Suddenly her passenger door opened. Pierce thought it was her son.
Wanda Pierce fought back against an attacker. (Image source: WTHR-TV)
“As soon as I turned my head, there we were, face-to-face,” Pierce told WTHR-TV in Indianapolis. She wasn’t looking at her son, but another man in his early 20s.
And he was pointing a gun at Pierce and grabbing the purse on her lap.
That’s when the great-grandmother did something her attacker probably wasn’t expecting.
“For some particular reason, instinct told me at the same time, ‘That’s mine,’” Pierce told WTHR of the Tuesday attack. “‘I work for what I get. You’re just a young punk running around out here doing things you ought not do and you’re not getting my purse.’”
“Then he told me, ‘Lady, give me the purse or I’m going to shoot you,’” Pierce recalled. “And that’s when I told him, ‘No, you won’t’ — bad word — and I held on to it anyway,” she told WTHR.
Image source: WTHR-TV
Pierce acknowledged that the safest path in that situation was to give up her purse — and that if she had to do it over again she’d make a different choice — but “until you’re in that situation, you really don’t know what you’d do.”
“I was bound and determined to keep what was mine,” she said. “Didn’t work.”
The attacker then pistol-whipped her, Pierce said. “He hit me in the head and I knew it was bleeding, but I still held on.”
“I continued to hold onto the purse and he hit me here,” she added, pointing to her right wrist.
“And something else hit me that said ‘let go’ and I let go,” Pierce said.
Image source: WTHR-TV
The man may have gotten away with her purse, but Pierce said she’d face him in court in a heartbeat and give him a piece of her mind.
“I’d tell him, ‘I hope that wherever you’re going, somebody beats the living tar out of you because you deserve it,’” Pierce told the station. “I only got hurt, but that’s all right. At least I gave ‘em a fight. I don’t think he quite expected that either.”
Why it is easy for President Obama to lie to the American people
Published November 18, 2013
There are at least these two differences this time: First, the admission of the lie does not come at a moment when this president is facing impeachment (which would almost certainly have been true for President Nixon had he not resigned).
Second, this president still shows, in my opinion, even after his most recent mea culpa, far less remorse than President Nixon showed in the speech he made upon announcing he would leave office and in his choice to leave office.
I do not believe the president sees most Americans as competent. I believe he sees them as children.
In this case, the president lied to Americans about the Affordable Care Act, promising that passing the legislation meant they could keep their health plans and doctors, when the truth is that tens of millions of people will likely lose their health care plans and be forced to switch doctors.
That’s a really big lie, however you measure it — whether in the tens of millions of people affected, or the hundreds of thousands of doctors, or the dozens of insurance companies, or the thousands and thousands of employers or the rerouting of billions of dollars.
Yet, the president only said he was “sorry that people are finding themselves in this situation based on reassurances they got from me.”
He didn’t say that he had profoundly violated the trust of the American people.
He didn’t say that he would search his soul for the reason he could have been so intent on passing his legislation that he promised very important things he knew he could not deliver.
He didn’t say that the rage people feel toward him is justified.
Why does it seem so easy for the president to tell such a gargantuan lie?
- In order to feel guilty about deceiving someone, an individual must have respect for that person.
- He must consider the other man or woman his equal.
- He must believe that depriving the other man or woman of the truth would be a sin because it deprives that person of free will. Because without the facts, competent people can’t make informed decisions.
But I do not believe the president sees most Americans as competent. I believe he sees them as children, who cannot think for themselves, nor support themselves, nor defend themselves.
And because he believes this is a nation of children who are powerless to truly decide anything knowledgably, withholding certain facts from them “for their own good,” is no different than telling the kids a few harmless lies to keep them safe and settle them down and calm their anxieties.
“This doesn’t taste bad,” a father might say to his daughter before giving her medicine, even when he knows it will. The lie is forgivable. It’s meant to keep his little girl from being too anxious and refusing what she needs.
But tell a competent adult something tastes good when it will make him gag, and you’ll be, rightfully, seen as having deprived the person of information he deserved.
This president was lied to by his father who abandoned him, by his mother who abandoned him and by the grandmother who hugged him, but also revealed that she distrusted men of color.
Now, he wants to be the only adult in town. He needs that much power to feel safe, because he was that disempowered and unsafe in the past. So, to him, we’re incompetents.
To him, we’re just kids who need to take our medicine. And lying is the easy and justifiable way to get the job done.
Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
United States Has Been Secretly Lifting Iranian Sanctions, Explosive Report Says
Nov. 8, 2013 10:55am
Published Nov. 8 at 8:45 am; Updated at 10:55 am.
The Obama administration has been secretly softening sanctions on Iran since the election of its new president and ahead of a new round of nuke talks with the country that’s been openly hostile to Israel and the U.S. in the past, an exclusive report from the Daily Beast says. That report comes as Israeli Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday that he “utterly rejects” the emerging nuclear deal between western powers and Iran, calling it a “bad deal” and promising that Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks on a mobilephone after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Israel, Friday, Nov. 8, 2013. (AP Photo/Jason Reed, Pool)
That deal includes the key condition for Iran that there must be relief from sanctions, but the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake and Josh Rogin write that “began quietly and modestly five months ago.”
Lake and Rogin continue:
“A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.”
“For five months, since Rouhani’s election, the United States has offered Iran two major forms of sanctions relief,” Dubowitz said. “First there’s been a significant slowdown in the pace of designations while the Iranians are proliferating the number of front companies and cutouts to bust sanctions.”
The second kind of relief Dubowitz said the White House had offered Iran was through its opposition to new Iran sanctions legislation supported by both parties in Congress.
Not surprisingly, Netanyahu has been voicing displeasure over the deal, especially over the disappearing sanctions.
“I understand the Iranians are walking around very satisfied in Geneva as well they should because they got everything and paid nothing,” he told reporters.
“They wanted relief of sanctions after years of grueling sanctions, they got that. They paid nothing because they are not reducing in any way their nuclear enrichment capability. So Iran got the deal of the century and the international community got a bad deal,” Netanyahu said.
Israel believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and says international pressure should be stepped up, not eased, in order to force Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. Netanyahu has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, unilaterally if necessary, if he concludes that diplomatic pressure on Iran has failed.
He spoke before meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry returned to Tel Aviv from Jordan to speak with Netanyahu before flying to Switzerland to participate in nuclear talks with Iran.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry walks to his plane after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Israel, Friday, Nov. 8, 2013. Netanyahu, before meeting with Kerry, said Friday that he “utterly rejects” the emerging nuclear deal between western powers and Iran, calling it a “bad deal” and promising that Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself. (Credit: AP)
Kerry’s decision to fly to Geneva comes after signs that global powers and Iran were close to a deal that would cap some of Iran’s suspected nuclear program in exchange for limited relief from economic sanctions.
“This is a very bad deal and Israel utterly rejects it. Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and defend the security of its people,” he said.
A State Department official said only that Kerry and Netanyahu met one on one for two hours and 15 minutes.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed Kerry would go Geneva to meet Friday with the European Union’s top diplomat, Catherine Ashton, and Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.
Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, citing hostile Iranian rhetoric toward the Jewish state, Iran’s missile capabilities and its support for violent Middle Eastern militant groups.
Netanyahu says pressure must be maintained until Iran halts all enrichment of uranium, a key step in producing a nuclear weapon; removes its stockpile of enriched uranium from the country; closes suspicious enrichment facilities and shutters a facility that could produce plutonium, another potential gateway to nuclear arms.
Despite Netanyahu’s warnings, there are growing signs that any international deal with Iran will fall short of his demands.
The Iranian nuclear program will likely to dominate Friday’s meeting, overshadowing Kerry’s efforts to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
A senior state department official said that Kerry has been open to the possibility of traveling to Geneva for the talks “if it would help narrow differences.”
The official said Ashton asked Kerry to attend the latest round of discussions. The official called the negotiations “a complex process” and said Kerry was “committed to doing anything he can” to help.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race
Nov. 5, 2013 8:43am
A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert C. Sarvis on the ballot — a move that could split conservative votes in a tight race.
Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to Sarvis’ campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis’ name on Tuesday’s statewide ballot.
Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor. He’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler for Republican Ken Cuccinelli.
A Sarvis campaign bumper sticker, “Paid for by the Libertarian Booster PAC.” (Image: Robert Sarvis/Facebook)
A spokesman for Sarvis provided no direct answers late Monday when TheBlaze asked about Liemandt’s Democrat ties and whether Sarvis had been recruited to split conservative votes as a way to aid Democrat Terry McAuliffe.
“We’re coordinating Sarvis interviews with Richmond, Norfolk and Charlottesville TV news teams to reach Virginia voters – our first priority – on Election Eve,” John Vaught LaBeaume, Sarvis communications director and strategist, responded in an email to TheBlaze.
According to Virginia election filings posted by the Virginia Public Access Project, Liemandt contributed $150,000 of the Texas-based Libertarian Booster PAC’s $229,000 revenue. The Libertarian Booster PAC reported providing $11,454 to pay for signature collection, yard signs and campaign materials for Sarvis and another $4,690 for four Libertarian candidates running for the Virginia state legislature.
$10,000 of the Libertarian Booster PAC’s $11,454 in-kind donations to Sarvis went to secure a spot on the ballot. (Image: Screengrab/VPAP)
Liemandt’s Democratic Ties
In March 2012, ABC News reported Liemandt was among three dozen of the Obama campaign’s largest bundlers invited to a state dinner honoring British Prime Minister David Cameron. ABC News reported the invited bundlers, who also included Vogue editor Anna Wintour and Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, were responsible for at least $10.7 million of the $250 million the campaign had collected to that point.
Liemandt and his wife Andra have also been contributors to the Libertarian National Committee, but their largess has been mostly focused on the Democratic Party.
In March ’12, ABC News says Liemandt was among 3 dozen Obama bundlers invited to a state dinner.
Donations linked to Liemandt’s company, Trilogy, also has split its political giving between libertarian third-party efforts and liberal Democrats. During the 2012 election cycle, Trilogy poured $100,000 into another libertarian group — Libertarian Action Super PAC — while simultaneously making generous contributions to the Democratic National Committee ($92,400), the Democratic Party of Ohio ($12,453) and Barack Obama ($10,000), as well as more than $25,000 for Democrat Party organizations in Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.
The Liemandts have some other friends in common with the Obamas. The couple and some friends flew to New York to have dinner with Berkshire Hathaway billionaire Warren Buffet in October 2011.
On Sunday, the Danville Register & Bee, a Virginia newspaper owned by Berkshire Hathaway, announced that, for the first time in its history, it would back a Libertarian for public office. It endorsed Sarvis, a political neophyte, saying he “offers a real alternative this year, a break from the two-party paradigm that has not served us well.”
According to campaign finance reports, the Libertarian Booster PAC focused the vast majority of its spending on getting Sarvis on the ballot, paying for people to circulate the petitions to collect nominating petitions for Sarvis.
News reports indicate the Sarvis campaign turned in 18,000 signatures, well above the 10,000 necessary to get his name on the statewide ballot.
But that didn’t come without a court fight. Virginia election law says people circulating nominating petitions for a third-party candidate must be legal state residents. Court records show Darryl Bonner, a Pennsylvania resident who has been hired to circulate petitions in other states’ elections, joined with the Libertarian Party of Virginia to argue that rule violated the First Amendment right to petition.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Virginia residency requirement last spring in an action where the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia represented the Libertarian Party and Bonner. The State of Virginia indicated in October it would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sarvis’ Positions Questioned
Some political observers have questioned Sarvis’ libertarian chops, pointing to some decidedly un-libertarian views on issues ranging from the economy and tax cuts to climate change. Conservative radio host Glenn Beck touched on Sarvis’ policy positions during his broadcast Monday morning, urging Virginia voters to educate themselves before heading the polls Tuesday.
“Terry McAuliffe looks like he may win in Virginia, if conservatives don’t come out in droves. If you don’t do everything you need to do,” Beck said. McAuliffe’s Republican opponent, Cuccinelli, gained favorability with Virginia conservatives as attorney general after leading the state’s legal charge against Obamacare, but a victory in Tuesday’s election is anything but certain.
“This guy is not a Libertarian,” Beck said of Sarvis on Monday. (Image: TheBlaze TV)
“And so the first litigator against it you would think would be a shoo-in but, no, not necessarily,” Beck added. “And here’s why: Because you got this libertarian who has taken nine points off, but he’s not really a libertarian … Do not be fooled… Libertarians, if you indeed are voting for this guy, you need to know who he is, at least what he’s saying because he doesn’t sound like any libertarian I have ever met.”
The White House just announced two new executive measures for gun control. The announcement came to reporters via email.
“FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence,” the subject of the announcement reads.
“Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities. These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan and the President unveiled on January 16, 2013,” reads the White House’s announcement.
Even as Congress fails to act on common-sense proposals, like expanding criminal background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime, the President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence.
Building on the 23 Executive Actions the President and Vice President Unveiled Last January
· Last December, the President asked the Vice President to develop a series of recommendations to reduce gun violence. On January 16, 2013, they released these proposals, including 23 executive actions. With the first Senate confirmation of an ATF Director on July 31, 2013, the Administration has completed or made significant progress on 22 of the 23 executive actions. The new executive actions unveiled today build on this successful effort.
Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands
· Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.
· However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation. At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run. ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.
· Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole. The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually. By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.
Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets
· When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.
· Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.
Dear FreedomWorks member,
As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to support the resolution, H.Con.Res. 24, by Rep. Steve Scalise, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be harmful to the U.S. economy.
The carbon tax is essentially a tax on all emissions from burning fossil fuels – which provide over 80 percent of our nation’s energy. Taxing carbon emissions will necessarily cause the cost of our nation’s most plentiful energy source to increase sharply, placing addition burdens upon both individual Americans and our economy at large. Even some proponents of carbon tax schemes admit that their plans will cost thousands of jobs in the energy sector.
Increasing the cost of energy is one of the most devastating blows that can be dealt to a struggling economy, because doing so increases the costs of all goods through increased transportation costs and overhead. Also, higher energy costs are inherently regressive, taking a far greater portion of income from the poor.
In addition, a carbon tax would add a massive, brand new revenue source for the federal government, which would inevitably be spent to continue the growth of the leviathan state.
Thus, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to reject a carbon tax by supporting Rep. Scalise’s resolution.
President and CEO
CNBC Host’s Stunning Slam on Ted Cruz: ‘Can We Get Some…Mexican Music, Maybe?’
Oct. 23, 2013 8:47am
[Author’s note: Scroll down to the bottom of this story to see important updates.]
CNBC’s Steve Liesman made an offhand crack Tuesday about freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and “Mexican music” that has some saying he went too far.
“We’re going to call this the Senator Ted Cruz jobs report,” Liesman said in reference to Tuesday’s unemployment report. “These are the jobless claims of Senator Ted Cruz.”
An image of Cruz appeared on the CNBC studio screens, prompting Liesman to say, “Can we get some music to go along with that? Some Mexican music, maybe?”
Shortly thereafter, some upbeat music started playing (though it’s unclear exactly what it was). Cruz is of Cuban descent.
Liesman’s decision to refer to the September jobs report as the “Ted Cruz jobs report” is curious. The host is presumably blaming the report’s poor showing on the partial government shutdown inspired by the Texas senator. However, the shutdown lasted from Oct. 1 to Oct. 16. The jobs report released Tuesday covers September.
A CNBC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.
UPDATE 10/23/13, 12:00 pm ET – CNBC’s Steve Liesman has issued a formal apology for the “Mexican music” crack:
Regarding my recent remark on Squawk Box regarding Senator Ted Cruz, I first want to deeply and sincerely apologize if my remarks were insensitive.
Second, I want to explain that it was not intended to be offensive in any way.
I thought of him only as an American senator from Texas, and in an attempt, on the fly, to choose music representing that state, I chose Mexican music.
As a musician for many decades, I’ve played and listened to tons of Texas songs infused with Mexican themes. A better choice would have been Country/Western or Texas Roadhouse Blues — it was a bad reach all the way around.
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Featured image screen grab