By Darrell Preston - Jul 28, 2010 9:40 PM CDT Thu Jul 29 02:40:44 UTC 2010
Illinois, which is in its worst financial position ever, will raise the income-tax rate in January to address its deficit, Governor Pat Quinn’s budget director said.
Lawmakers probably will increase the individual and corporate income-tax rates by 2 percentage points, generating $6 billion of new revenue, the budget director, David Vaught, said in an interview. The Legislature failed to address the deficit this year because of the November election, he said.
“We’re going to pass a tax increase in January,” Vaught said. “We expect it is going to be substantial.”
The governor has called for boosting the rate by 1 percentage point to pay for education funding, and the state Senate approved a 2 percentage point increase.
“We don’t know what the House is going to do,” John Sinsheimer, Quinn’s director of capital markets, said in an interview.
The state has been under pressure from companies that rate municipal bonds to show it has the political will to address its $13 billion deficit for the fiscal year that began July 1.
Fitch Ratings cut its rating on $25.7 billion of debt from A+ to A, its sixth-highest investment grade, in June. Moody’s Investors Service cut its rating one level to A1 on June 4.
The cost of insuring five-year Illinois bonds against default more than doubled to a record of $370,000 in June to protect $10 million of debt, from a low of $155,000 in January, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The price has fallen back to $281,000 today.
Deficit Premium
Illinois has been penalized in the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market because of the deficit, Vaught said. The state’s $1.3 billion short-term borrowing, which officially closed today, was more costly than a larger one a year ago. The longest maturity, due in June 2011, priced at a yield of 2.125 percent. Last year’s $2.25 billion of short-term borrowings priced at less than 2 percent.
At one point before lawmakers passed some reforms to cut the cost of pension contributions, a rating company threatened the state with a double downgrade if it didn’t take steps to address the deficit, Vaught said.
“That’s real feedback,” Vaught said. “If we don’t deal with it, it will get worse.”
The state ended fiscal 2010 on June 30 “in the worst fiscal position in its history,” Comptroller Daniel Hynes said in a report. The state’s backlog of unpaid bills rose to $4.7 billion from $2.8 billion a year earlier, Hynes said. The state’s general fund balance fell to negative $4.7 billion, the lowest level in the state’s history.
To contact the reporter on this story: Darrell Preston in Dallas at dpreston@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/illinois-will-probably-raise-income-tax-rate-to-5-budget-director-says.html
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud And Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press Writers – 26 mins ago
PHOENIX – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.
The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.
It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration
PHOENIX – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.
The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.
It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration
Rasmussen: Giannoulias 43, Kirk 41
Wednesday, July 28, 2010 The Illinois Senate race remains very close.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Illinois finds Democrat Alexi Giannoulias with 43% support to Republican Mark Kirk’s 41%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.
Both men have been battling ethics questions for weeks. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Illinois voters now rate Giannoulias as less ethical than most politicians, and 21% say the same of Kirk.
Voters tend to grade politicians on a curve and most Illinois voters still say both men are at least as ethical as most politicians. For Giannoulias, 52% hold that view including eight percent (8%) who say the Democrat is more ethical than most of his political peers.
For Kirk, the numbers are only slightly better. Sixty percent (60%) say his ethics are at least as good as most politicians while 10% view him as more ethical.
Earlier this month, Giannoulias, the state’s current treasurer, led Kirk, a U.S. congressman, 40% to 39%.
The slight uptick in Kirk’s numbers appears to signal an end to a downward trend for the Republican candidate. For Giannoulias, it’s the fifth straight single point increase in support.
In six previous surveys back to February, Giannoulias has earned 37% to 44% of the vote. Kirk’s support in those same surveys has ranged from 39% to 46%.
Illinois remains one of seven Toss-Up states in the Rasmussen Reports Senate Balance of Power rankings.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Illinois was conducted on July 26, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters in the state view Kirk as a conservative, but 21% say he’s a moderate.
By comparison, 51% think Giannoulias is a liberal, while 24% characterize him as a moderate.
Kirk carries 74% of conservative voters in the state, while 79% of liberals support Giannoulias. Moderates favor the Democrat by a 47% to 35% margin.
Forty-four percent (44%) say Kirk’s views are in the mainstream, but 30% say they are extreme. Forty-two percent (42%) view Giannoulias in the mainstream, while 33% say he’s extreme.
Seven percent (7%) of Illinois voters hold a Very Favorable opinion of Giannoulias, while 25% view him Very Unfavorably.
Kirk is viewed Very Favorably by 10% and Very Unfavorably by 14%.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Kirk holds a modest lead among male voters, and Giannoulias has a similar lead among women. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican by nearly 20 points.
Kirk has a wide fundraising lead on Giannoulias, and President Obama is scheduled to return to his home state next month for a Giannoulias fundraiser.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters in the state approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 43% disapprove. This level of support has held steady in recent months and is well above Obama’s approval ratings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
For context, former Governor Rod Blagojevich is currently on trial in Chicago on federal corruption charges, and just after his arrest in December 2008, 59% of Illinois voters rated him as less ethical than most politicians. Thirty-one percent (31%) said his ethics were about the same as his peers.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Illinois finds Democrat Alexi Giannoulias with 43% support to Republican Mark Kirk’s 41%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.
Both men have been battling ethics questions for weeks. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Illinois voters now rate Giannoulias as less ethical than most politicians, and 21% say the same of Kirk.
Voters tend to grade politicians on a curve and most Illinois voters still say both men are at least as ethical as most politicians. For Giannoulias, 52% hold that view including eight percent (8%) who say the Democrat is more ethical than most of his political peers.
For Kirk, the numbers are only slightly better. Sixty percent (60%) say his ethics are at least as good as most politicians while 10% view him as more ethical.
Earlier this month, Giannoulias, the state’s current treasurer, led Kirk, a U.S. congressman, 40% to 39%.
The slight uptick in Kirk’s numbers appears to signal an end to a downward trend for the Republican candidate. For Giannoulias, it’s the fifth straight single point increase in support.
In six previous surveys back to February, Giannoulias has earned 37% to 44% of the vote. Kirk’s support in those same surveys has ranged from 39% to 46%.
Illinois remains one of seven Toss-Up states in the Rasmussen Reports Senate Balance of Power rankings.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Illinois was conducted on July 26, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters in the state view Kirk as a conservative, but 21% say he’s a moderate.
By comparison, 51% think Giannoulias is a liberal, while 24% characterize him as a moderate.
Kirk carries 74% of conservative voters in the state, while 79% of liberals support Giannoulias. Moderates favor the Democrat by a 47% to 35% margin.
Forty-four percent (44%) say Kirk’s views are in the mainstream, but 30% say they are extreme. Forty-two percent (42%) view Giannoulias in the mainstream, while 33% say he’s extreme.
Seven percent (7%) of Illinois voters hold a Very Favorable opinion of Giannoulias, while 25% view him Very Unfavorably.
Kirk is viewed Very Favorably by 10% and Very Unfavorably by 14%.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Kirk holds a modest lead among male voters, and Giannoulias has a similar lead among women. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican by nearly 20 points.
Kirk has a wide fundraising lead on Giannoulias, and President Obama is scheduled to return to his home state next month for a Giannoulias fundraiser.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters in the state approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 43% disapprove. This level of support has held steady in recent months and is well above Obama’s approval ratings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
For context, former Governor Rod Blagojevich is currently on trial in Chicago on federal corruption charges, and just after his arrest in December 2008, 59% of Illinois voters rated him as less ethical than most politicians. Thirty-one percent (31%) said his ethics were about the same as his peers.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Blisteringly Anti-Catholic Tabloid.Chicago Sun-Times
Thomas F. Roeser
The Chicago Sun-Times is the number one Catholic-basher among U.S. urban newspapers…running on regular basis columnists Carol Marin, Neil Steinberg and Christopher Hitchens all of whom repeatedly slug the Church, the paper not bothering to run any defense of the Church…despite the fact that Catholics comprise 40% of the population of Cook and Lake counties.
Marin, a strident liberal who is a one-person oligopoly in commentary (newspaper columnist, NBC-TV and WTTW-TV public television commentator) on occasion calls herself Catholic but rabidly disagrees with the Church’s basic theological fundamentals—abortion, gay rights (she endorses same-sex marriage) and the male priesthood. A braying ignoramus on theology and church tradition, known as Apassionata van Leftward the 60sh flame-haired, radical feminist frequently baits the Church, last Sunday wrote of interviewing heretical lefty nuns who are challenging the hierarchy. In the paper she blasted the Church (the theology of which she knows nothing and cares not a whit) for certifying that the nuns who want to be ordained priests are under scrutiny.
How dare the Church seek to discipline its own without checking with the rabid man-hater who nurtures a grievance that men are usurping women’s rightful place…this despite the fact that she earned big bucks as a TV anchor on NBC and duplicitously avoided being fired for low ratings by serving up the pretext that her exalted standard of ethics would force her to resign because her station signed Jerry Springer. That bogus stand for “principle!” Calculating her story with abject cynicism, she avoided being tagged for the real reason she was being demoted—a ratings flame-out.
Skillfully this authenticist Catholic-hating ranting far-left ideologue linked the charge made by the Vatican scored the fact that a bishop excommunicated a nun for sanctioning the abortion of a woman…repeating the canard—earlier disproven—that the nun ordered the procedure in order to save the life of the mother of four. Then she equated the legalized murder perpetrated by the nun with laxity of the “old boy” network concerning pedophilia. If she dared intake a breath of honesty she would know that neither she nor the Vatican officially have the guts to call the reason for pedophilia by the right name. As Marin is a patron of homosexual “rights” she cannot reconcile herself to recognize that the cause of child abuse is the liberal intake by the seminaries of outward exhibiting and closet lavenders. .
Marin is one of three Sun-Times lightweights to slurp ink over the vestige of the Church, its 2000 year old rubrics against abortion, its refusal to stomach gay advocacy and its opposition to women priests.
The second is the syndicated columnist Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens’ glowering bearded face appears weekly in the tabloid. He is so virulent an anti-Catholic that shortly after the death of Mother Teresa…the beatified nun who served the very poor of the Calcutta streets, ministering to the hungry, sick, dying and their progeny, he wrote the scurrilous, blasphemous book The Missionary Position which ridiculed her work, the title, of course, the double entendre of a sex position, blistering her as one who adopted the guise of a saint to spread an extremist religious ideology (Catholicism) and raise money.
Explaining his choice of the book’s title, Hitchens said: “It was either this or Sacred Cow and I thought Sacred Cow would be in bad taste.” This regular weekly columnist for The Sun-Times maintains that she used contributions to open convents in 150 countries rather than establishing a teaching hospital, that she did not lift a finger to support “structural measures to end poverty” and that she did not do anything to raise the status of women. Shades of Carol Marin.
The third is Neil Steinberg. He’s a reform Jew who makes much of his Jewishness although he’s far from observant…a guy who slugged his wife in a drunken rage with a cell phone and spent time in jail and who writes a column frequently berating the Church’s lack of humanity (last week he called me a Catholic “gargoyle” because I defend the Church from his abuse). He’s called the Church a “a bully in eyeglasses” [I don’t quite get what it means but maybe he’s gone back on the bottle] because some members of the hierarchy have called for excommunication of politicians who support abortion. He has no time for Catholic dogma but then doesn’t know a thing about its theology, counting on long-disproven theories to shore up his pseudo-sophisticated bigoted anti-Catholic rants, raking up make-believe sophistry on Galileo and Copernicus that begs for scholarly erudition…but it is not in him.
Attacking the pro-life movement isn’t the same as being virulently ant-Catholic as Steinberg is, but you can understand by reading his words on abortion why he hates the Catholic Church. Simply, abortion means a great deal to him. His jaded cynicism about life can be seen readily by his terming abortion “murder lite.”
“Abortion isn’t murder—well, not until the last stage of pregnancy when it is, but rather a sort of murder—murder lite…”
Again: “If being pro-life meant an across-the-board reverence for life—if pro-life activists were Human Watch members, also fierce opponents of capital punishment and vigorous battlers of AIDS in Africa and, of course, anti-handgun and anti-war—then I could almost understand the compressed rage that pro-lifers often exhibit.”
More: “The abortion is murder line is just that—a slogan. The people saying it obviously don’t believe that in their hearts [sic] because otherwise they’d be even more extreme than they already are. If it’s murder then why aren’t they talking about, not only banning abortion, bu also conducting enormous public trials to prosecute the millions of women who have had one?”
There you have it…Marin…Hitchens…Steinberg. My word to the tabloid is not to fire them…but not be surprised if—as I hope—a wave of criticism and canceled subscriptions hits. The idea that the paper has a supposed Catholic publisher…John Barron…and a Catholic editor of the editorial page…and both can stomach this tide of religious hatred is sickening.
http://blog.tomroeser.com/
The Chicago Sun-Times is the number one Catholic-basher among U.S. urban newspapers…running on regular basis columnists Carol Marin, Neil Steinberg and Christopher Hitchens all of whom repeatedly slug the Church, the paper not bothering to run any defense of the Church…despite the fact that Catholics comprise 40% of the population of Cook and Lake counties.
Marin, a strident liberal who is a one-person oligopoly in commentary (newspaper columnist, NBC-TV and WTTW-TV public television commentator) on occasion calls herself Catholic but rabidly disagrees with the Church’s basic theological fundamentals—abortion, gay rights (she endorses same-sex marriage) and the male priesthood. A braying ignoramus on theology and church tradition, known as Apassionata van Leftward the 60sh flame-haired, radical feminist frequently baits the Church, last Sunday wrote of interviewing heretical lefty nuns who are challenging the hierarchy. In the paper she blasted the Church (the theology of which she knows nothing and cares not a whit) for certifying that the nuns who want to be ordained priests are under scrutiny.
How dare the Church seek to discipline its own without checking with the rabid man-hater who nurtures a grievance that men are usurping women’s rightful place…this despite the fact that she earned big bucks as a TV anchor on NBC and duplicitously avoided being fired for low ratings by serving up the pretext that her exalted standard of ethics would force her to resign because her station signed Jerry Springer. That bogus stand for “principle!” Calculating her story with abject cynicism, she avoided being tagged for the real reason she was being demoted—a ratings flame-out.
Skillfully this authenticist Catholic-hating ranting far-left ideologue linked the charge made by the Vatican scored the fact that a bishop excommunicated a nun for sanctioning the abortion of a woman…repeating the canard—earlier disproven—that the nun ordered the procedure in order to save the life of the mother of four. Then she equated the legalized murder perpetrated by the nun with laxity of the “old boy” network concerning pedophilia. If she dared intake a breath of honesty she would know that neither she nor the Vatican officially have the guts to call the reason for pedophilia by the right name. As Marin is a patron of homosexual “rights” she cannot reconcile herself to recognize that the cause of child abuse is the liberal intake by the seminaries of outward exhibiting and closet lavenders. .
Marin is one of three Sun-Times lightweights to slurp ink over the vestige of the Church, its 2000 year old rubrics against abortion, its refusal to stomach gay advocacy and its opposition to women priests.
The second is the syndicated columnist Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens’ glowering bearded face appears weekly in the tabloid. He is so virulent an anti-Catholic that shortly after the death of Mother Teresa…the beatified nun who served the very poor of the Calcutta streets, ministering to the hungry, sick, dying and their progeny, he wrote the scurrilous, blasphemous book The Missionary Position which ridiculed her work, the title, of course, the double entendre of a sex position, blistering her as one who adopted the guise of a saint to spread an extremist religious ideology (Catholicism) and raise money.
Explaining his choice of the book’s title, Hitchens said: “It was either this or Sacred Cow and I thought Sacred Cow would be in bad taste.” This regular weekly columnist for The Sun-Times maintains that she used contributions to open convents in 150 countries rather than establishing a teaching hospital, that she did not lift a finger to support “structural measures to end poverty” and that she did not do anything to raise the status of women. Shades of Carol Marin.
The third is Neil Steinberg. He’s a reform Jew who makes much of his Jewishness although he’s far from observant…a guy who slugged his wife in a drunken rage with a cell phone and spent time in jail and who writes a column frequently berating the Church’s lack of humanity (last week he called me a Catholic “gargoyle” because I defend the Church from his abuse). He’s called the Church a “a bully in eyeglasses” [I don’t quite get what it means but maybe he’s gone back on the bottle] because some members of the hierarchy have called for excommunication of politicians who support abortion. He has no time for Catholic dogma but then doesn’t know a thing about its theology, counting on long-disproven theories to shore up his pseudo-sophisticated bigoted anti-Catholic rants, raking up make-believe sophistry on Galileo and Copernicus that begs for scholarly erudition…but it is not in him.
Attacking the pro-life movement isn’t the same as being virulently ant-Catholic as Steinberg is, but you can understand by reading his words on abortion why he hates the Catholic Church. Simply, abortion means a great deal to him. His jaded cynicism about life can be seen readily by his terming abortion “murder lite.”
“Abortion isn’t murder—well, not until the last stage of pregnancy when it is, but rather a sort of murder—murder lite…”
Again: “If being pro-life meant an across-the-board reverence for life—if pro-life activists were Human Watch members, also fierce opponents of capital punishment and vigorous battlers of AIDS in Africa and, of course, anti-handgun and anti-war—then I could almost understand the compressed rage that pro-lifers often exhibit.”
More: “The abortion is murder line is just that—a slogan. The people saying it obviously don’t believe that in their hearts [sic] because otherwise they’d be even more extreme than they already are. If it’s murder then why aren’t they talking about, not only banning abortion, bu also conducting enormous public trials to prosecute the millions of women who have had one?”
There you have it…Marin…Hitchens…Steinberg. My word to the tabloid is not to fire them…but not be surprised if—as I hope—a wave of criticism and canceled subscriptions hits. The idea that the paper has a supposed Catholic publisher…John Barron…and a Catholic editor of the editorial page…and both can stomach this tide of religious hatred is sickening.
http://blog.tomroeser.com/
Freeing a terrorist
Who's to blame for the Lockerbie bomber's release?
On Aug. 20, 2009, a notorious terrorist walked out of a Scottish prison and onto a plane bound for his home country of Libya, where he received a hero's welcome.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, had served only eight years of a life sentence for his role in killing 270 people, including 189 Americans. But Scottish authorities, saying he had terminal cancer and would be dead in three months, chose to free him on humanitarian grounds. Nearly a year later, he is still alive, and so is the controversy over his release.
A Senate committee is investigating claims that the oil giant BP lobbied the British government to let al-Megrahi go in order to win oil contracts from the Libyan government. The Foreign Secretary's office confirmed that in 2007, BP had meetings with British officials "over fears that disputes about a prisoner transfer agreement could damage its oil exploration contracts with Libya," as The Herald of Glasgow reported.
Another cause for interest arose when a British newspaper published correspondence between the U.S. and British governments suggesting that the Obama administration did not want to see al-Megrahi leave prison but was grudgingly open to compassionate release in Scotland. This news is hard to square with what the White House said at the time — that it was "surprised, disappointed and angry" at his release.
BP denies lobbying for his release, though it admits urging the completion of a prisoner transfer agreement. The White House, meanwhile, released the full text of a 2009 letter in which it told Scottish authorities that because of the "heinous nature" and "devastating impact" of his crime, al-Megrahi he should serve out his life sentence.
Failing that, it said, he should be let out to die "while remaining in Scotland under supervision," not returned to Libya. The impression left by the letter: the administration opposed the release but could have been much more vigorous in trying to prevent it.
The case for freeing this convicted terrorist looks even worse in retrospect than it did when it happened. Impending death is a weak excuse for commuting the sentence of someone responsible for such wanton slaughter. And it turns out that, at best, the killer was a good distance from death's door.
Clearly, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should have plenty to investigate. If the British and U.S. governments are not afraid of the truth, they should be willing to turn over all the relevant documents about these matters.
Whatever it heard from BP or the administration, the ultimate blame for this vile decision lies with the government in Glasgow. But the public ought to know if others deserve a share of the disgrace.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-edit-lockerbie-20100726,0,2673239.story
On Aug. 20, 2009, a notorious terrorist walked out of a Scottish prison and onto a plane bound for his home country of Libya, where he received a hero's welcome.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, had served only eight years of a life sentence for his role in killing 270 people, including 189 Americans. But Scottish authorities, saying he had terminal cancer and would be dead in three months, chose to free him on humanitarian grounds. Nearly a year later, he is still alive, and so is the controversy over his release.
A Senate committee is investigating claims that the oil giant BP lobbied the British government to let al-Megrahi go in order to win oil contracts from the Libyan government. The Foreign Secretary's office confirmed that in 2007, BP had meetings with British officials "over fears that disputes about a prisoner transfer agreement could damage its oil exploration contracts with Libya," as The Herald of Glasgow reported.
Another cause for interest arose when a British newspaper published correspondence between the U.S. and British governments suggesting that the Obama administration did not want to see al-Megrahi leave prison but was grudgingly open to compassionate release in Scotland. This news is hard to square with what the White House said at the time — that it was "surprised, disappointed and angry" at his release.
BP denies lobbying for his release, though it admits urging the completion of a prisoner transfer agreement. The White House, meanwhile, released the full text of a 2009 letter in which it told Scottish authorities that because of the "heinous nature" and "devastating impact" of his crime, al-Megrahi he should serve out his life sentence.
Failing that, it said, he should be let out to die "while remaining in Scotland under supervision," not returned to Libya. The impression left by the letter: the administration opposed the release but could have been much more vigorous in trying to prevent it.
The case for freeing this convicted terrorist looks even worse in retrospect than it did when it happened. Impending death is a weak excuse for commuting the sentence of someone responsible for such wanton slaughter. And it turns out that, at best, the killer was a good distance from death's door.
Clearly, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should have plenty to investigate. If the British and U.S. governments are not afraid of the truth, they should be willing to turn over all the relevant documents about these matters.
Whatever it heard from BP or the administration, the ultimate blame for this vile decision lies with the government in Glasgow. But the public ought to know if others deserve a share of the disgrace.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-edit-lockerbie-20100726,0,2673239.story
Chicago gun lawsuit plaintiffs apply for permits
Lead plaintiff critical of $100 fee
By Dahleen Glanton, Tribune reporter
5:35 p.m. CDT, July 26, 2010
Two years after filing a lawsuit that ultimately forced the city to dismantle its 28-year-old handgun ban, Otis McDonald walked into a police station Monday and applied for a permit allowing him to keep a gun at home.
The process took only 20 minutes, but McDonald said some of the requirements to obtain the permit seemed excessive. And though a gun permit was worth any price for him, he said he is concerned that the $100 fee could deter some law-abiding citizens from buying a handgun.
The city's new gun ordinance, enacted after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the law that banned handguns, allows each eligible gun owner in a home to buy one handgun a month. Each handgun requires a $100 permit that must be renewed every three years. Gun owners also are required to register all their guns with the city, at a cost of $15 per gun every three years.
"The process itself was not bad," said McDonald, who initially plans to buy a .45-caliber handgun for his Morgan Park home. "But the unreasonable thing was the $100 many people will not be able to afford. And that's a shame because they will continue to be vulnerable to the drug dealers and gangbangers."
As of Monday, police said they had accepted 83 applications for gun permits since the process started two weeks ago.
McDonald showed up at the police station along with the three other plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the handgun ban, who also applied for firearm permits. It could take 10 days to three months for workers to process the applications.
"I wouldn't be surprised if it took three months in the face of all the difficulties being thrown up to us citizens who are only striving to protect ourselves," said McDonald, 76, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
McDonald, an avid hunter who already owns a shotgun, which was legal under the previous ordinance, said he has long had a firearm owner's identification card. The FOID card, issued by Illinois State Police, is required before registering a firearm in the city. He said he also had completed the required four hours of classroom training and an hour on a firing range needed before obtaining a permit.
Still, McDonald said, it won't be easy for some people to complete the process.
"I can't see to save my life why our government would infringe this on law-abiding taxpaying citizens," he said. "This is an inherent right. It was not given based on how much money we've got or what we can afford financially."
dglanton@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-gun-permit-0727-20100726,0,3451462.story
By Dahleen Glanton, Tribune reporter
5:35 p.m. CDT, July 26, 2010
Two years after filing a lawsuit that ultimately forced the city to dismantle its 28-year-old handgun ban, Otis McDonald walked into a police station Monday and applied for a permit allowing him to keep a gun at home.
The process took only 20 minutes, but McDonald said some of the requirements to obtain the permit seemed excessive. And though a gun permit was worth any price for him, he said he is concerned that the $100 fee could deter some law-abiding citizens from buying a handgun.
The city's new gun ordinance, enacted after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the law that banned handguns, allows each eligible gun owner in a home to buy one handgun a month. Each handgun requires a $100 permit that must be renewed every three years. Gun owners also are required to register all their guns with the city, at a cost of $15 per gun every three years.
"The process itself was not bad," said McDonald, who initially plans to buy a .45-caliber handgun for his Morgan Park home. "But the unreasonable thing was the $100 many people will not be able to afford. And that's a shame because they will continue to be vulnerable to the drug dealers and gangbangers."
As of Monday, police said they had accepted 83 applications for gun permits since the process started two weeks ago.
McDonald showed up at the police station along with the three other plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the handgun ban, who also applied for firearm permits. It could take 10 days to three months for workers to process the applications.
"I wouldn't be surprised if it took three months in the face of all the difficulties being thrown up to us citizens who are only striving to protect ourselves," said McDonald, 76, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
McDonald, an avid hunter who already owns a shotgun, which was legal under the previous ordinance, said he has long had a firearm owner's identification card. The FOID card, issued by Illinois State Police, is required before registering a firearm in the city. He said he also had completed the required four hours of classroom training and an hour on a firing range needed before obtaining a permit.
Still, McDonald said, it won't be easy for some people to complete the process.
"I can't see to save my life why our government would infringe this on law-abiding taxpaying citizens," he said. "This is an inherent right. It was not given based on how much money we've got or what we can afford financially."
dglanton@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-gun-permit-0727-20100726,0,3451462.story
Monday, July 26, 2010
White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi
Jason Allardyce and Tony Allen-Mills From: The Australian July 26, 2010
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."
Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland "would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi's release".
The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.
It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.
The US Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi's doctors thought he could live for another decade.
A source close to the Senate inquiry said: "The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer."
Last week, a succession of British politicians - including Mr MacAskill, Mr Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw - delivered a diplomatic snub to the senators by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate's hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi's release.
Despite the controversy over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and Megrahi's release, it emerged over the weekend that BP is planning deep-water drilling off Libya.
And BP boss Tony Hayward is poised to quit this week when the company announces its half-year results, London's Sunday Telegraph reported.
The Sunday Times, AFP
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."
Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland "would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi's release".
The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.
It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.
The US Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi's doctors thought he could live for another decade.
A source close to the Senate inquiry said: "The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer."
Last week, a succession of British politicians - including Mr MacAskill, Mr Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw - delivered a diplomatic snub to the senators by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate's hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi's release.
Despite the controversy over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and Megrahi's release, it emerged over the weekend that BP is planning deep-water drilling off Libya.
And BP boss Tony Hayward is poised to quit this week when the company announces its half-year results, London's Sunday Telegraph reported.
The Sunday Times, AFP
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041
Migrants sell up, flee Arizona ahead of crackdown
* Tough state immigration crackdown starts on Thursday
* Boom in yard sales as migrants sell off belongings
* Legal residents, US-born children join scramble to leave
By Tim Gaynor
PHOENIX, July 25 (Reuters) - Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.
A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.
"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."
The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.
The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.
It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.
Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.
In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.
On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/
"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.
She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."
LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE
Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.
The state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.
Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the 100-seat Senate.
Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed by President Barack Obama's administration, which wants a preliminary injunction to block the law.
A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.
The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November's elections.
While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.
Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and two children born in Phoenix.
"Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are committing a crime," she said as she sold children's clothes at a yard sale with three other families. "They could arrest him for driving me to the shops."
Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.
"It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be here," said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in Phoenix.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2514063220100725
* Boom in yard sales as migrants sell off belongings
* Legal residents, US-born children join scramble to leave
By Tim Gaynor
PHOENIX, July 25 (Reuters) - Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.
A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.
"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."
The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.
The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.
It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.
Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.
In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.
On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/
"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.
She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."
LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE
Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.
The state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.
Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the 100-seat Senate.
Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed by President Barack Obama's administration, which wants a preliminary injunction to block the law.
A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.
The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November's elections.
While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.
Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and two children born in Phoenix.
"Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are committing a crime," she said as she sold children's clothes at a yard sale with three other families. "They could arrest him for driving me to the shops."
Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.
"It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be here," said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in Phoenix.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2514063220100725
U.S. Condemns Release of Documents on Afghan War
By Roger Runningen and James Rupert - Jul 26, 2010
Pakistan said the disclosure of about 92,000 classified documents on the war in Afghanistan wouldn’t affect its relations with the U.S. or its role in the conflict after the White House condemned the leak.
“These things have been regurgitated from time to time by the media or by low-level officials without any endorsement by the U.S. government,” Farhatullah Babar, the spokesman for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, said in a phone interview from Islamabad. “There is nothing much in this.”
The “irresponsible” release of the documents by the website Wikileaks could endanger lives and U.S. security, National Security Adviser James Jones said. The documents date from 2004 through 2009.
A theme in the reports is allegations that Pakistan’s main intelligence agency is secretly aiding the Taliban and allied Islamic militant rebels whom the U.S. is trying to defeat, reported the New York Times, the London-based Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel, which say Wikileaks gave them weeks of access to the documents. The group opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan, according to a White House statement.
U.S. Condemnation
“The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security,” Jones said in a White House statement. Wikileaks “made no effort to contact” the administration about the documents, he said.
Jones said the documents cover the period leading up to President Barack Obama’s change of direction in the war in Afghanistan, which was begun by former President George W. Bush’s administration after the Sept. 11 attacks by al-Qaeda.
“On Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years,” Jones said.
Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan said the U.S. military is just starting to assess the significance of the leaked material.
Assessing the Damage
“We’ve only seen a fraction of the documents that are purported to be out there,” he told reporters. “Until we get a look at all of them, we can’t know exactly what the extent of the damage might be” to the safety of troops and information gathering.
“These documents as they have been described are at the ‘secret’ level -- not ‘top secret’ or higher classifications -- so there are any number of people who have access” to them, Lapan said. The documents seen so far represent “the kind of reporting that goes on at the tactical level on a routine basis,” he said.
U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague, speaking to reporters at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Brussels, said the leaks were largely irrelevant and wouldn’t alter U.K. war policy.
“We’re not going to spend our time looking at leaks,” Hague said. “We are going to carry on with the internationally agreed strategy. They should not be damaging to the international effort.”
Aiding the Taliban
The Times said the reports suggest that members of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate had met with members of the Taliban to organize militias to fight against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and plot assassinations of Afghan leaders. Babar said the Guardian reported no “smoking gun” to prove covert Pakistani aid to the Taliban, which has been alleged for years by retired U.S. officials who have worked on Afghanistan, and by independent scholars.
The documents buttress years of contention by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that the anti-Taliban fight is being hampered “by the cases of civilian casualties and by the role that ISI has played in destabilizing activities within Afghanistan,” Karzai’s spokesman, Waheed Omar, told reporters in a press conference today, referring to Pakistan’s spy agency.
“Most of this is what we always have raised with our international partners, and this will now help to raise more awareness,” Omar said.
Kerry’s Comment
“However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.”
Representative Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the documents are “outdated” and, under the Obama administration’s “new counterinsurgency strategy implemented earlier this year, we now have the pieces in place to turn things around.”
“Pakistan has significantly stepped up its fight against the Taliban” and “there is no doubt that there have been significant improvements in its overall effort,” Skelton said.
Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, called the leak of the documents “irresponsible” and said they reflected “nothing more than single-source comments and rumors.” The Pakistani government is “following a clearly laid-out strategy of fighting and marginalizing terrorists,” as a strategic partner of the U.S., Haqqani said in an e-mail.
The leak got little coverage today from Pakistan’s TV news channels and newspapers. The English-language daily, Dawn, published only Haqqani’s dismissal of the leak.
Heat-Seeking Missiles
The documents show that Taliban insurgents have used portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft, something that hadn’t been disclosed by the military, the Times said. The reports also provide information about secret commando units seeking to capture or kill top insurgent leaders, and the use of CIA paramilitary operations inside Afghanistan, the newspaper said.
The reports suggest that the Taliban’s use of heat-seeking missiles “has been neither common nor especially effective; usually the missiles missed,” the Times said.
The Times called the documents an “incomplete record” of the war. While the Times said the documents don’t contradict official accounts of the war, the newspaper also said at that times the U.S. military had made misleading public statements.
As examples, the Times cited attribution of the downing of a helicopter to conventional weapons instead of heat-seeking missiles and giving Afghans credit for missions carried out by special operations commandos.
Civilian Deaths
The Guardian said the documents show that allied troops have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents. In addition, it said, “Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighboring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency,” referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Der Spiegel said all three publications vetted the documents, compared them with independent reports and concluded they were authentic. The reports were mostly written by sergeants, Der Spiegel said.
“Nearly nine years after the start of the war, they paint a gloomy picture,” Der Spiegel said. “They portray Afghan security forces as the hapless victims of Taliban attacks. They also offer a conflicting impression of the deployment of drones, noting that America’s miracle weapons are also entirely vulnerable.”
Jones said the disclosure wouldn’t alter the White House course in the almost 10-year war.
“These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people,” Jones said.
Names Withheld
The Times said it took “care not to publish information that would harm national security interests.” The newspaper said it withheld “names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports” and “avoided anything that might compromise American or allied intelligence-gathering methods.”
The newspaper described Wikileaks as “an organization devoted to exposing secrets of all kinds” and said the group provided the publications with the documents “several weeks ago” on condition that nothing be published until July 25.
Wikileaks is an organization of Internet network volunteers in more than a dozen countries who obtained and conducted an assessment of the documents, the Washington Post reported.
Wikileaks Comment
Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, said at a press conference in London the documents “don’t include top-secret papers” or most reports from U.S. special forces, the CIA or reports by coalition partners.
“We have tried hard to make sure this material doesn’t put innocents at harm,” he said. All the documents are at least seven months old and “of no operational consequence.”
Assange said it’s “too early to say” whether the disclosure will influence the course of the war or help or hinder a drawdown of troops.
“It’s clear it will shape an understanding of what the past six years of war has been like, and the course of the war has to change. The manner in which it needs to change is not yet clear,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.net; James Rupert in New Delhi at jrupert3@bloomberg.net.
Pakistan said the disclosure of about 92,000 classified documents on the war in Afghanistan wouldn’t affect its relations with the U.S. or its role in the conflict after the White House condemned the leak.
“These things have been regurgitated from time to time by the media or by low-level officials without any endorsement by the U.S. government,” Farhatullah Babar, the spokesman for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, said in a phone interview from Islamabad. “There is nothing much in this.”
The “irresponsible” release of the documents by the website Wikileaks could endanger lives and U.S. security, National Security Adviser James Jones said. The documents date from 2004 through 2009.
A theme in the reports is allegations that Pakistan’s main intelligence agency is secretly aiding the Taliban and allied Islamic militant rebels whom the U.S. is trying to defeat, reported the New York Times, the London-based Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel, which say Wikileaks gave them weeks of access to the documents. The group opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan, according to a White House statement.
U.S. Condemnation
“The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security,” Jones said in a White House statement. Wikileaks “made no effort to contact” the administration about the documents, he said.
Jones said the documents cover the period leading up to President Barack Obama’s change of direction in the war in Afghanistan, which was begun by former President George W. Bush’s administration after the Sept. 11 attacks by al-Qaeda.
“On Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years,” Jones said.
Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan said the U.S. military is just starting to assess the significance of the leaked material.
Assessing the Damage
“We’ve only seen a fraction of the documents that are purported to be out there,” he told reporters. “Until we get a look at all of them, we can’t know exactly what the extent of the damage might be” to the safety of troops and information gathering.
“These documents as they have been described are at the ‘secret’ level -- not ‘top secret’ or higher classifications -- so there are any number of people who have access” to them, Lapan said. The documents seen so far represent “the kind of reporting that goes on at the tactical level on a routine basis,” he said.
U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague, speaking to reporters at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Brussels, said the leaks were largely irrelevant and wouldn’t alter U.K. war policy.
“We’re not going to spend our time looking at leaks,” Hague said. “We are going to carry on with the internationally agreed strategy. They should not be damaging to the international effort.”
Aiding the Taliban
The Times said the reports suggest that members of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate had met with members of the Taliban to organize militias to fight against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and plot assassinations of Afghan leaders. Babar said the Guardian reported no “smoking gun” to prove covert Pakistani aid to the Taliban, which has been alleged for years by retired U.S. officials who have worked on Afghanistan, and by independent scholars.
The documents buttress years of contention by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that the anti-Taliban fight is being hampered “by the cases of civilian casualties and by the role that ISI has played in destabilizing activities within Afghanistan,” Karzai’s spokesman, Waheed Omar, told reporters in a press conference today, referring to Pakistan’s spy agency.
“Most of this is what we always have raised with our international partners, and this will now help to raise more awareness,” Omar said.
Kerry’s Comment
“However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.”
Representative Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the documents are “outdated” and, under the Obama administration’s “new counterinsurgency strategy implemented earlier this year, we now have the pieces in place to turn things around.”
“Pakistan has significantly stepped up its fight against the Taliban” and “there is no doubt that there have been significant improvements in its overall effort,” Skelton said.
Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, called the leak of the documents “irresponsible” and said they reflected “nothing more than single-source comments and rumors.” The Pakistani government is “following a clearly laid-out strategy of fighting and marginalizing terrorists,” as a strategic partner of the U.S., Haqqani said in an e-mail.
The leak got little coverage today from Pakistan’s TV news channels and newspapers. The English-language daily, Dawn, published only Haqqani’s dismissal of the leak.
Heat-Seeking Missiles
The documents show that Taliban insurgents have used portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft, something that hadn’t been disclosed by the military, the Times said. The reports also provide information about secret commando units seeking to capture or kill top insurgent leaders, and the use of CIA paramilitary operations inside Afghanistan, the newspaper said.
The reports suggest that the Taliban’s use of heat-seeking missiles “has been neither common nor especially effective; usually the missiles missed,” the Times said.
The Times called the documents an “incomplete record” of the war. While the Times said the documents don’t contradict official accounts of the war, the newspaper also said at that times the U.S. military had made misleading public statements.
As examples, the Times cited attribution of the downing of a helicopter to conventional weapons instead of heat-seeking missiles and giving Afghans credit for missions carried out by special operations commandos.
Civilian Deaths
The Guardian said the documents show that allied troops have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents. In addition, it said, “Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighboring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency,” referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Der Spiegel said all three publications vetted the documents, compared them with independent reports and concluded they were authentic. The reports were mostly written by sergeants, Der Spiegel said.
“Nearly nine years after the start of the war, they paint a gloomy picture,” Der Spiegel said. “They portray Afghan security forces as the hapless victims of Taliban attacks. They also offer a conflicting impression of the deployment of drones, noting that America’s miracle weapons are also entirely vulnerable.”
Jones said the disclosure wouldn’t alter the White House course in the almost 10-year war.
“These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people,” Jones said.
Names Withheld
The Times said it took “care not to publish information that would harm national security interests.” The newspaper said it withheld “names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports” and “avoided anything that might compromise American or allied intelligence-gathering methods.”
The newspaper described Wikileaks as “an organization devoted to exposing secrets of all kinds” and said the group provided the publications with the documents “several weeks ago” on condition that nothing be published until July 25.
Wikileaks is an organization of Internet network volunteers in more than a dozen countries who obtained and conducted an assessment of the documents, the Washington Post reported.
Wikileaks Comment
Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, said at a press conference in London the documents “don’t include top-secret papers” or most reports from U.S. special forces, the CIA or reports by coalition partners.
“We have tried hard to make sure this material doesn’t put innocents at harm,” he said. All the documents are at least seven months old and “of no operational consequence.”
Assange said it’s “too early to say” whether the disclosure will influence the course of the war or help or hinder a drawdown of troops.
“It’s clear it will shape an understanding of what the past six years of war has been like, and the course of the war has to change. The manner in which it needs to change is not yet clear,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.net; James Rupert in New Delhi at jrupert3@bloomberg.net.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
GOP Trumpets 430 Candidates on Fall Ballots
by John McArdle CQ- Roll Call
With the filing deadlines now passed in every state except Delaware, House Republicans appear to be on course to have more candidates on fall general election ballots than ever before.
Republicans have found candidates to run in 430 of 435 districts this fall, a total that tops the party’s previous high of 427, which was set in 1996
Meanwhile, Democrats are not fielding challengers against more than 20 House Republicans this cycle, which means the GOP appears to have more candidates on the ballot than Democrats for only the seventh time since 1920.
The last time House Republicans had more candidates on the ballot was in 2004, when the GOP put up 409 candidates to the Democrats’ 396.
In 2006, there were 422 Democrats on the ballot compared with 388 Republicans. Last cycle, House Democrats put up 420 candidates to Republicans’ 392.
But House Democrats will still hold the record for most candidates on a general election ballot. In 1958 and 1964 the party fielded 434 candidates.
National Republican Congressional Committee officials are calling this year’s candidate milestone another a sign of a favorable political environment and giving credit to the committee’s recruitment efforts.
“We’ve expanded the playing field more than ever before,” NRCC Recruitment Chairman Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said Wednesday. “When you get more candidates, that means you’ve been in more districts, your message is going further, you’re challenging the failed message of the Democrats across the country in almost every single seat.”
McCarthy said the committee had a goal of having a candidate run in every district this cycle. And while the NRCC failed to find a candidate to run in Washington’s 7th district, Pennsylvania’s 1st district, Massachusetts’ 8th district, Florida’s 17th district and New York’s 12th district, McCarthy said the 430 number proves how serious the GOP is about taking back control of the House.
He said that getting more than 420 candidates was the “magic number” when it comes to flipping the House. In 1994, Republicans fielded 421 House candidates when they took over the House. When Democrats took over the House in 1948, they fielded 426 candidates.
But certainly not all candidates are created equal, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dismissed the idea that the number of districts where Republicans have candidates running is significant.
“The NRCC and Kevin McCarthy are nuts if they think 430 seats are in play. In McCarthyland, Boehner and Cantor’s seats are also in play then since there are Democrats running,” DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer said, referring to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). “Unlike the NRCC, the DCCC is strategic in the seats it targets. With all the bluster and all the promises the NRCC has made, the bottom line is that they now face some tough decisions about which of their many hyped candidates with anemic fundraising have disqualified themselves as viable candidates and have to be abandoned.”
The GOP’s 430 candidates this cycle include 178 current GOP Members as well as recruits of widely varying degrees of strength
That includes recruits such as Arkansas attorney Tim Griffin, a well-known, well-funded candidate with a good chance of flipping the Democratic-held, Little Rock-based 2nd district this fall. But it also includes scores of Republicans who will face Democratic incumbents who are certain to be re-elected.
Republican Gerald Hashimoto, a candy maker who is challenging Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), has yet to report any money raised to the Federal Election Commission. Since winning a special election in 1998, Lee has never been re-elected with less than 81 percent of the vote in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003706787&cpage=2
With the filing deadlines now passed in every state except Delaware, House Republicans appear to be on course to have more candidates on fall general election ballots than ever before.
Republicans have found candidates to run in 430 of 435 districts this fall, a total that tops the party’s previous high of 427, which was set in 1996
Meanwhile, Democrats are not fielding challengers against more than 20 House Republicans this cycle, which means the GOP appears to have more candidates on the ballot than Democrats for only the seventh time since 1920.
The last time House Republicans had more candidates on the ballot was in 2004, when the GOP put up 409 candidates to the Democrats’ 396.
In 2006, there were 422 Democrats on the ballot compared with 388 Republicans. Last cycle, House Democrats put up 420 candidates to Republicans’ 392.
But House Democrats will still hold the record for most candidates on a general election ballot. In 1958 and 1964 the party fielded 434 candidates.
National Republican Congressional Committee officials are calling this year’s candidate milestone another a sign of a favorable political environment and giving credit to the committee’s recruitment efforts.
“We’ve expanded the playing field more than ever before,” NRCC Recruitment Chairman Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said Wednesday. “When you get more candidates, that means you’ve been in more districts, your message is going further, you’re challenging the failed message of the Democrats across the country in almost every single seat.”
McCarthy said the committee had a goal of having a candidate run in every district this cycle. And while the NRCC failed to find a candidate to run in Washington’s 7th district, Pennsylvania’s 1st district, Massachusetts’ 8th district, Florida’s 17th district and New York’s 12th district, McCarthy said the 430 number proves how serious the GOP is about taking back control of the House.
He said that getting more than 420 candidates was the “magic number” when it comes to flipping the House. In 1994, Republicans fielded 421 House candidates when they took over the House. When Democrats took over the House in 1948, they fielded 426 candidates.
But certainly not all candidates are created equal, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dismissed the idea that the number of districts where Republicans have candidates running is significant.
“The NRCC and Kevin McCarthy are nuts if they think 430 seats are in play. In McCarthyland, Boehner and Cantor’s seats are also in play then since there are Democrats running,” DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer said, referring to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). “Unlike the NRCC, the DCCC is strategic in the seats it targets. With all the bluster and all the promises the NRCC has made, the bottom line is that they now face some tough decisions about which of their many hyped candidates with anemic fundraising have disqualified themselves as viable candidates and have to be abandoned.”
The GOP’s 430 candidates this cycle include 178 current GOP Members as well as recruits of widely varying degrees of strength
That includes recruits such as Arkansas attorney Tim Griffin, a well-known, well-funded candidate with a good chance of flipping the Democratic-held, Little Rock-based 2nd district this fall. But it also includes scores of Republicans who will face Democratic incumbents who are certain to be re-elected.
Republican Gerald Hashimoto, a candy maker who is challenging Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), has yet to report any money raised to the Federal Election Commission. Since winning a special election in 1998, Lee has never been re-elected with less than 81 percent of the vote in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003706787&cpage=2
Did Gallup mislead readers on its last generic Congressional ballot chart?
Update: Gallup corrects sample report
posted at 2:55 pm on July 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Many of us have puzzled over the latest results from Gallup’s regular look at the generic Congressional ballot from its surveys. Most pollsters — including Gallup — have had the race a tie or Republicans in the lead most of 2010. Suddenly this week, Gallup showed a big gain for Democrats in the gap between the two parties, even though it also showed Republican enthusiasm peaking. How did this happen?
It turns out that Gallup may have mixed their sampling types without acknowledging the difference. Red State calls this a lie:
The Republicans lead with a sample of Registered Voters, but the Democrats lead with a sample of Adults. Someone who trusted Gallup’s pretty, but lying, picture would never have noticed. Real Clear Politics noticed, and actually recorded the polls differently. Friends noticed this and alerted me.
It is terribly dishonest for Gallup to string together two different polls as one series, as Gallup does not only in their graphs, but in their write-ups as well. Here’s an example from the July 19 release:
The Democrats’ six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party’s candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March.
Notice, they call the series one measure, even though it’s at least two different kinds of polls with two different kinds of sampling pools. You cannot pretend that a poll of all adults and a poll filtered by registered voters are part of the same series, even if the same questions are asked. That’s Polling 101, and whoever’s responsible for the Gallup release should have known this, and certainly whoever’s responsible for oversight of the Gallup releases would know this.
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it a lie, but it’s obviously a mistake. Polls can only be considered a series if they use the same techniques and sampling for the surveys within them. I’ve not seen any indication that Gallup does this on a regular or even occasional basis, and it simply could have been a mistake between two different analysts within Gallup. Pollsters do survey general populations and registered voters within the same survey, but they usually report them separately and with proper annotation, although to my recollection the generic Congressional ballot at Gallup has always been a registered-voter sample.
It serves as a good reminder on analyzing polls: always check the sample. That’s not to find deliberate biases (although it’s pretty easy to spot that in sampling techniques and question structure), but to understand the data and its predictive value. The predictive value of general-population surveys on electoral questions is usually poor, which is why pollsters generally use registered voters, or better yet, likely voters, a sample which generally has the most predictive value of behavior in the election.
This should have alerted Gallup that something was wrong in its report:
Simultaneous with increased support for Democratic congressional candidates, Gallup polling last week found Republican voters expressing significantly more enthusiasm about voting in the 2010 midterms. The 51% of Republicans saying they are “very enthusiastic” about voting this fall is up from 40% the week prior, and is the highest since early April — shortly after passage of healthcare reform. Democratic enthusiasm is unchanged, at 28%.
So Democratic enthusiasm was unchanged, Republican enthusiasm shot upwards … and somehow Democrats got a five-point boost? That’s a big red flag right there, and it’s one that should have had Gallup reviewing its conclusions.
Update: And the mystery continues. At the same Gallup link, the editors say that the sample was misreported as general population and really was registered voters all along:
Editor’s note: The original version of this story inadvertently referred to national adults rather than registered voters in the survey methods statement. The results reported here and in all Gallup generic ballot trends so far this year are based on registered voters; the survey methods statement now correctly reflects that.
So we still have no explanation of the counterintuitive swing in the polling results — and we’ll all await the results from next week’s survey to see if this is an outlier.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/21/did-gallup-mislead-readers-on-its-last-generic-congressional-ballot-chart/?print=1
posted at 2:55 pm on July 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Many of us have puzzled over the latest results from Gallup’s regular look at the generic Congressional ballot from its surveys. Most pollsters — including Gallup — have had the race a tie or Republicans in the lead most of 2010. Suddenly this week, Gallup showed a big gain for Democrats in the gap between the two parties, even though it also showed Republican enthusiasm peaking. How did this happen?
It turns out that Gallup may have mixed their sampling types without acknowledging the difference. Red State calls this a lie:
The Republicans lead with a sample of Registered Voters, but the Democrats lead with a sample of Adults. Someone who trusted Gallup’s pretty, but lying, picture would never have noticed. Real Clear Politics noticed, and actually recorded the polls differently. Friends noticed this and alerted me.
It is terribly dishonest for Gallup to string together two different polls as one series, as Gallup does not only in their graphs, but in their write-ups as well. Here’s an example from the July 19 release:
The Democrats’ six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party’s candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March.
Notice, they call the series one measure, even though it’s at least two different kinds of polls with two different kinds of sampling pools. You cannot pretend that a poll of all adults and a poll filtered by registered voters are part of the same series, even if the same questions are asked. That’s Polling 101, and whoever’s responsible for the Gallup release should have known this, and certainly whoever’s responsible for oversight of the Gallup releases would know this.
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it a lie, but it’s obviously a mistake. Polls can only be considered a series if they use the same techniques and sampling for the surveys within them. I’ve not seen any indication that Gallup does this on a regular or even occasional basis, and it simply could have been a mistake between two different analysts within Gallup. Pollsters do survey general populations and registered voters within the same survey, but they usually report them separately and with proper annotation, although to my recollection the generic Congressional ballot at Gallup has always been a registered-voter sample.
It serves as a good reminder on analyzing polls: always check the sample. That’s not to find deliberate biases (although it’s pretty easy to spot that in sampling techniques and question structure), but to understand the data and its predictive value. The predictive value of general-population surveys on electoral questions is usually poor, which is why pollsters generally use registered voters, or better yet, likely voters, a sample which generally has the most predictive value of behavior in the election.
This should have alerted Gallup that something was wrong in its report:
Simultaneous with increased support for Democratic congressional candidates, Gallup polling last week found Republican voters expressing significantly more enthusiasm about voting in the 2010 midterms. The 51% of Republicans saying they are “very enthusiastic” about voting this fall is up from 40% the week prior, and is the highest since early April — shortly after passage of healthcare reform. Democratic enthusiasm is unchanged, at 28%.
So Democratic enthusiasm was unchanged, Republican enthusiasm shot upwards … and somehow Democrats got a five-point boost? That’s a big red flag right there, and it’s one that should have had Gallup reviewing its conclusions.
Update: And the mystery continues. At the same Gallup link, the editors say that the sample was misreported as general population and really was registered voters all along:
Editor’s note: The original version of this story inadvertently referred to national adults rather than registered voters in the survey methods statement. The results reported here and in all Gallup generic ballot trends so far this year are based on registered voters; the survey methods statement now correctly reflects that.
So we still have no explanation of the counterintuitive swing in the polling results — and we’ll all await the results from next week’s survey to see if this is an outlier.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/21/did-gallup-mislead-readers-on-its-last-generic-congressional-ballot-chart/?print=1
Judge: Bolingbrook Republican can reclaim ballot spot
A Will County judge today ruled to put a Bolingbrook Republican and tea party darling back on the ballot for a state Senate race.
Will County Associate Judge Bobbi Petrungaro overturned a 2-1 decision by the Will County Electoral Board to remove Cedra Crenshaw, 37, from the ballot over a technical issue with her nomination petitions. Crenshaw is vying to unseat Democratic state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi in the 43rd District, which has been a Democratic stronghold since 1975.
The decision to remove Crenshaw from the ballot energized tea party members, who organized protests on the stay-at-home mom's behalf and showed up in patriotic T-shirts to her legal hearings.
"Finally, we can vindicate the 2,100 people who signed my petition and all the people in the district who are looking for an alternative," she said after learning of the ruling, which was filed at 4:01 p.m.
The decision comes about three months after Crenshaw's petitions were challenged. Earlier this month, the electoral board ruled her nomination petitions were invalid because her campaign had indicated on old forms that signatures were collected within 90 days of the filing deadline, even though a new state law requires that signatures be collected within 75.
In fact, Crenshaw collected signatures less than 20 days before the deadline since Republicans picked her to be their candidate on March 30 because no one in the GOP had run in the February primary.
After the electoral board ruling, her attorney, Burt Odelson, filed an appeal in Will County Circuit Court. On Tuesday, Petrungaro listened to both sides argue the minutia of state election law.
In her five-page ruling, Petrungaro said that state election law is unclear and "has not yet been reconciled by the legislature."
However, she said court precedent is clear and favors Crenshaw. "There was no evidence of fraud, nor was there any evidence of voter confusion ... No evidence was presented that the petitions were circulated in an untimely manner or that the Petitioner gained an unfair advantage over her opponents by circulating her petition in advance of the circulation period," the ruling said.
Will County Clerk Nancy Schultz Voots, the lone dissenting vote on the three-member electoral board, said she is glad the judge ruled quickly. Voots had also stated in the board's dissent that state election law is unclear.
Crenshaw said now her campaign can move forward.
"Now we're able to raise money," she said. "We weren't able to do that before because we couldn't answer this very important question of whether I would be on the ballot or not. Now, we are going to be able to get our message out."
Wilhelmi, 42, who has served in that seat since 2005, said he supports the court's decision and that the Democratic leadership does not plan to appeal. He said he looks forward to talking about his record and the significant progress made in job creation and economic development in the Will County area.
"I welcome Mrs. Crenshaw to the race and I look forward to discussing the issues that are important to Will County as well as the significant challenge we face in the state of Illinois," he said. "People want to hear what our solutions are for those challenges, and I look forward to discussing how we arrive at responsible solutions."
The election is in November.
-- Mary Owen, Triblocal
Will County Associate Judge Bobbi Petrungaro overturned a 2-1 decision by the Will County Electoral Board to remove Cedra Crenshaw, 37, from the ballot over a technical issue with her nomination petitions. Crenshaw is vying to unseat Democratic state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi in the 43rd District, which has been a Democratic stronghold since 1975.
The decision to remove Crenshaw from the ballot energized tea party members, who organized protests on the stay-at-home mom's behalf and showed up in patriotic T-shirts to her legal hearings.
"Finally, we can vindicate the 2,100 people who signed my petition and all the people in the district who are looking for an alternative," she said after learning of the ruling, which was filed at 4:01 p.m.
The decision comes about three months after Crenshaw's petitions were challenged. Earlier this month, the electoral board ruled her nomination petitions were invalid because her campaign had indicated on old forms that signatures were collected within 90 days of the filing deadline, even though a new state law requires that signatures be collected within 75.
In fact, Crenshaw collected signatures less than 20 days before the deadline since Republicans picked her to be their candidate on March 30 because no one in the GOP had run in the February primary.
After the electoral board ruling, her attorney, Burt Odelson, filed an appeal in Will County Circuit Court. On Tuesday, Petrungaro listened to both sides argue the minutia of state election law.
In her five-page ruling, Petrungaro said that state election law is unclear and "has not yet been reconciled by the legislature."
However, she said court precedent is clear and favors Crenshaw. "There was no evidence of fraud, nor was there any evidence of voter confusion ... No evidence was presented that the petitions were circulated in an untimely manner or that the Petitioner gained an unfair advantage over her opponents by circulating her petition in advance of the circulation period," the ruling said.
Will County Clerk Nancy Schultz Voots, the lone dissenting vote on the three-member electoral board, said she is glad the judge ruled quickly. Voots had also stated in the board's dissent that state election law is unclear.
Crenshaw said now her campaign can move forward.
"Now we're able to raise money," she said. "We weren't able to do that before because we couldn't answer this very important question of whether I would be on the ballot or not. Now, we are going to be able to get our message out."
Wilhelmi, 42, who has served in that seat since 2005, said he supports the court's decision and that the Democratic leadership does not plan to appeal. He said he looks forward to talking about his record and the significant progress made in job creation and economic development in the Will County area.
"I welcome Mrs. Crenshaw to the race and I look forward to discussing the issues that are important to Will County as well as the significant challenge we face in the state of Illinois," he said. "People want to hear what our solutions are for those challenges, and I look forward to discussing how we arrive at responsible solutions."
The election is in November.
-- Mary Owen, Triblocal
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
June unemployment rate rises in Illinois, falls in 39 other states
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The unemployment rate fell in most states in June, mainly because more people gave up searching for work and were no longer counted.
Fewer states saw job increases, the latest evidence that the economic recovery is slowing.
The jobless rate declined in 39 states and Washington, D.C. last month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That's a slight improvement from May, when 37 states saw their rates decline.
In Illinois, the June rate was 10.4 percent, up from 10 percent in May but down from 10.7 percent in April.
But only 21 states saw net job gains in June, the government said. That compared to 41 the previous month and is the fewest this year.
The decline in job creation reflects the layoff of thousands of temporary census workers. Those jobs inflated total payrolls in May and then reduced them in June.
Still, the report also indicated that businesses aren't hiring many new workers. Nationwide, private employers added a net gain of only 83,000 jobs last month. The national unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 percent in June from 9.7 percent the previous month, as about 650,000 people stopped looking for work.
New York's unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent the previous month. But the state lost 8,500 private-sector jobs, the second-straight decline in private employment. California's unemployment rate also declined, but the state gained just 1,300 private-sector jobs.
Wisconsin, meanwhile, saw its jobless rate fall to 7.9 percent from 8.2 percent the previous month. But the state's work force fell by 13,600, suggesting the decline was the result of people giving up job hunts. Furthermore, the state lost 1,000 private-sector jobs last month.
Nevada, battered by a housing slump and a drop in tourism, posted the nation's highest unemployment rate of 14.2 percent. That's the state's highest since records began in 1976.
In May, Nevada displaced Michigan from the top spot for the first time in more than four years. Michigan's unemployment rate fell to 13.2 percent in June, the nation's second-highest. It was followed by California with 12.3 percent and Rhode Island with 12 percent.
The report did include some bright spots. New Hampshire reported the largest drop in unemployment, to 5.9 percent from 6.4 percent. That was due in part to a net gain of 1,900 jobs.
The state added jobs in manufacturing, education and health services, and professional and business services, which includes temporary jobs.
Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina reported the largest job gains last month.
Texas added 14,000 jobs, with big gains in manufacturing, construction and professional and business services. Kentucky gained 6,200 jobs, mostly in manufacturing, construction and education and health services.
North Dakota continued to post the lowest unemployment rate, with 3.6 percent. It was followed by South Dakota at 4.5 percent and Nebraska at 4.8 percent
WASHINGTON -- The unemployment rate fell in most states in June, mainly because more people gave up searching for work and were no longer counted.
Fewer states saw job increases, the latest evidence that the economic recovery is slowing.
The jobless rate declined in 39 states and Washington, D.C. last month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That's a slight improvement from May, when 37 states saw their rates decline.
In Illinois, the June rate was 10.4 percent, up from 10 percent in May but down from 10.7 percent in April.
But only 21 states saw net job gains in June, the government said. That compared to 41 the previous month and is the fewest this year.
The decline in job creation reflects the layoff of thousands of temporary census workers. Those jobs inflated total payrolls in May and then reduced them in June.
Still, the report also indicated that businesses aren't hiring many new workers. Nationwide, private employers added a net gain of only 83,000 jobs last month. The national unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 percent in June from 9.7 percent the previous month, as about 650,000 people stopped looking for work.
New York's unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent the previous month. But the state lost 8,500 private-sector jobs, the second-straight decline in private employment. California's unemployment rate also declined, but the state gained just 1,300 private-sector jobs.
Wisconsin, meanwhile, saw its jobless rate fall to 7.9 percent from 8.2 percent the previous month. But the state's work force fell by 13,600, suggesting the decline was the result of people giving up job hunts. Furthermore, the state lost 1,000 private-sector jobs last month.
Nevada, battered by a housing slump and a drop in tourism, posted the nation's highest unemployment rate of 14.2 percent. That's the state's highest since records began in 1976.
In May, Nevada displaced Michigan from the top spot for the first time in more than four years. Michigan's unemployment rate fell to 13.2 percent in June, the nation's second-highest. It was followed by California with 12.3 percent and Rhode Island with 12 percent.
The report did include some bright spots. New Hampshire reported the largest drop in unemployment, to 5.9 percent from 6.4 percent. That was due in part to a net gain of 1,900 jobs.
The state added jobs in manufacturing, education and health services, and professional and business services, which includes temporary jobs.
Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina reported the largest job gains last month.
Texas added 14,000 jobs, with big gains in manufacturing, construction and professional and business services. Kentucky gained 6,200 jobs, mostly in manufacturing, construction and education and health services.
North Dakota continued to post the lowest unemployment rate, with 3.6 percent. It was followed by South Dakota at 4.5 percent and Nebraska at 4.8 percent
Liberal Journalists Suggest Government Shut Down Fox News
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller | Published: 12:01 AM 07/21/2010 | Updated: 11:04 AM 07/21/2010
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”
Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”
Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”
“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”
On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.
When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”
And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/2/
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”
Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”
Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”
“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”
On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.
When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”
And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/2/
Monday, July 19, 2010
Ballot controversy raises profile of candidate Cedra Crenshaw with tea party
Conservative media outlets take up the cause of Cedra Crenshaw after the Republican is removed from Illinois Senate race
By Mary Owen, TribLocal.com reporter
July 19, 2010
A ballot controversy in an Illinois Senate race has transformed a stay-at-home mom into a tea party darling whose story is being heard on conservative media outlets nationwide.
Cedra Crenshaw is a Bolingbrook Republican vying to unseat Democratic state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi. But after the Will County Electoral Board this month voted 2-1 along party lines to remove her from the ballot over a technical issue with her nomination petition, conservatives have rallied behind her.
"Unfortunately, people are very upset when, in essence, you have politicians who are frivolously taking away people's right to vote," Crenshaw said last week. "People are upset, and they are not going to take it anymore."
The 43rd District has been a Democratic stronghold since 1975, but Republicans believe that Crenshaw, 37, is their best bet in years to win the seat.
"She can do what others haven't done," said Richard Kavanagh, chairman of the Will County Republicans and one of Crenshaw's attorneys. "It's painfully clear that the Chicago Democrats don't want her on the ballot because they are afraid of her."
Wilhelmi said he will respect the court's decision and noted that ballot challenges are part of the electoral process. And Crenshaw's campaign had recruited her neighbor to file a challenge to the petition of the independent candidate running in the same race.
"This is politics as usual," said Jay Rowell, political director of the Illinois Senate Democratic Victory Fund. "This is what candidates do. This is what Republicans do. It's what Democrats do. She is nothing out of the ordinary."
The Electoral Board made its ruling because Crenshaw's nominating petition forms stated that signatures could be collected no earlier than 90 days before the filing deadline. A new state law requires signatures be collected no earlier than 75 days before the deadline. Crenshaw's attorneys have appealed her ballot removal, and a judge will hear arguments Tuesday.
In the meantime, the controversy has landed Crenshaw interviews with radio stations in Chicago, Florida, Missouri and South Carolina, in addition to a mention on the Fox News Channel's "The Sean Hannity Show."
As an African-American with strong tea party support, Crenshaw is in a unique position after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People passed a resolution last week condemning the tea party for its allegedly racist rhetoric.
"It's very sad," said Crenshaw, who moved to Chicago for a job out of college and then to Bolingbrook 11 years ago. "These are the same people who say there is no diversity in the Republican Party. Well, here I am, trying to bring a diversity of ideas."
Crenshaw was plucked from political obscurity by Adam Andrzejewski, a wealthy small-business owner who lost his gubernatorial bid in February. When no Republicans ran in the 43rd District primary in February, Andrzejewski passed on Crenshaw's name to Kavanagh.
The decision to remove Crenshaw from the ballot has energized tea party members, who have organized protests on her behalf and showed up in patriotic T-shirts to her legal hearings. One activist confronted Wilhelmi last week at a news conference in Chicago, grabbing a microphone and shouting, "Why are you afraid of a mom from the suburbs?"
Wilhelmi, who has held his Senate seat since 2005, was hesitant on Thursday to discuss Crenshaw, instead talking about jobs, public safety and transportation.
"At the end of the day, what each candidate must do is focus on their community and explain what they've done for their community," he said.
Before the political spotlight, Crenshaw was an outspoken parent in Valley View Public School District 365U. With three children, one of whom has autism, Crenshaw said she became involved with educational issues ranging from fiscal responsibility to curriculum. Her husband teaches physical education and coaches wrestling at Glenbard South High School in Glen Ellyn.
In her first foray into politics in February, she was elected precinct committeewoman.
"I was tired of out-of-control spending and encroachment of government," Crenshaw said.
Crenshaw, whose shoestring campaign has raised $12,535 while Wilhelmi's campaign war chest holds $140,000, has billed herself as an independent taking on a powerful Democrat. But Democrats note she has the strong backing of the GOP, which sent Evergreen Park attorney Burt Odelson to represent her in Will County. Odelson represented President George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida.
"How many moms do you know have George W. Bush's attorney?" Rowell said.
Crenshaw said the GOP may have sent legal counsel, but it hasn't given her significant financial backing and the support won't make her "beholden to the Republican Party."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/ct-met-0719-cedra-crenshaw-20100719,0,5039263.story
By Mary Owen, TribLocal.com reporter
July 19, 2010
A ballot controversy in an Illinois Senate race has transformed a stay-at-home mom into a tea party darling whose story is being heard on conservative media outlets nationwide.
Cedra Crenshaw is a Bolingbrook Republican vying to unseat Democratic state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi. But after the Will County Electoral Board this month voted 2-1 along party lines to remove her from the ballot over a technical issue with her nomination petition, conservatives have rallied behind her.
"Unfortunately, people are very upset when, in essence, you have politicians who are frivolously taking away people's right to vote," Crenshaw said last week. "People are upset, and they are not going to take it anymore."
The 43rd District has been a Democratic stronghold since 1975, but Republicans believe that Crenshaw, 37, is their best bet in years to win the seat.
"She can do what others haven't done," said Richard Kavanagh, chairman of the Will County Republicans and one of Crenshaw's attorneys. "It's painfully clear that the Chicago Democrats don't want her on the ballot because they are afraid of her."
Wilhelmi said he will respect the court's decision and noted that ballot challenges are part of the electoral process. And Crenshaw's campaign had recruited her neighbor to file a challenge to the petition of the independent candidate running in the same race.
"This is politics as usual," said Jay Rowell, political director of the Illinois Senate Democratic Victory Fund. "This is what candidates do. This is what Republicans do. It's what Democrats do. She is nothing out of the ordinary."
The Electoral Board made its ruling because Crenshaw's nominating petition forms stated that signatures could be collected no earlier than 90 days before the filing deadline. A new state law requires signatures be collected no earlier than 75 days before the deadline. Crenshaw's attorneys have appealed her ballot removal, and a judge will hear arguments Tuesday.
In the meantime, the controversy has landed Crenshaw interviews with radio stations in Chicago, Florida, Missouri and South Carolina, in addition to a mention on the Fox News Channel's "The Sean Hannity Show."
As an African-American with strong tea party support, Crenshaw is in a unique position after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People passed a resolution last week condemning the tea party for its allegedly racist rhetoric.
"It's very sad," said Crenshaw, who moved to Chicago for a job out of college and then to Bolingbrook 11 years ago. "These are the same people who say there is no diversity in the Republican Party. Well, here I am, trying to bring a diversity of ideas."
Crenshaw was plucked from political obscurity by Adam Andrzejewski, a wealthy small-business owner who lost his gubernatorial bid in February. When no Republicans ran in the 43rd District primary in February, Andrzejewski passed on Crenshaw's name to Kavanagh.
The decision to remove Crenshaw from the ballot has energized tea party members, who have organized protests on her behalf and showed up in patriotic T-shirts to her legal hearings. One activist confronted Wilhelmi last week at a news conference in Chicago, grabbing a microphone and shouting, "Why are you afraid of a mom from the suburbs?"
Wilhelmi, who has held his Senate seat since 2005, was hesitant on Thursday to discuss Crenshaw, instead talking about jobs, public safety and transportation.
"At the end of the day, what each candidate must do is focus on their community and explain what they've done for their community," he said.
Before the political spotlight, Crenshaw was an outspoken parent in Valley View Public School District 365U. With three children, one of whom has autism, Crenshaw said she became involved with educational issues ranging from fiscal responsibility to curriculum. Her husband teaches physical education and coaches wrestling at Glenbard South High School in Glen Ellyn.
In her first foray into politics in February, she was elected precinct committeewoman.
"I was tired of out-of-control spending and encroachment of government," Crenshaw said.
Crenshaw, whose shoestring campaign has raised $12,535 while Wilhelmi's campaign war chest holds $140,000, has billed herself as an independent taking on a powerful Democrat. But Democrats note she has the strong backing of the GOP, which sent Evergreen Park attorney Burt Odelson to represent her in Will County. Odelson represented President George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida.
"How many moms do you know have George W. Bush's attorney?" Rowell said.
Crenshaw said the GOP may have sent legal counsel, but it hasn't given her significant financial backing and the support won't make her "beholden to the Republican Party."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/ct-met-0719-cedra-crenshaw-20100719,0,5039263.story
Friday, July 16, 2010
Giannoulias lags behind Kirk in campaign cash
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
WASHINGTON—Illinois Democrat Senate Alexi Giannoulias raised just over $900,000 in the second quarter ending June 30 and has over $1 million cash on hand, with most of the money coming in June, campaign spokesman Kathleen Strand told the Chicago Sun-Times. GOP Senate rival Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) campaign said earlier this month that Kirk raised $2.3 million in the second quarter and has about $3.9 million cash on hand.
Giannoulias’ fund-raising was hobbled most of the last quarter because of a cloud over him because of the April failure of his family owned Broadway Bank. Giannoulias, the state treasurer, is also declining to accept donations from federal lobbyists and corporate political action committees. Kirk has been attacking Giannoulias for his tenure at the bank—calling him a “mob banker” and in the past weeks also criticized Giannoulias because he owed no 2009 income taxes because of the bank failure. People started writing Giannoulias checks again when his campaign showed it was surviving the Kirk hits over the bank failure and the Obama White House sent signals of support with a string of figures fund-raising for Giannoulias, including Vice President Biden, former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina. Senior White House advisor David Axelrod is in Chicago on July 25 for a Giannoulias fund-raiser. While all these events have been small, they went a message to the activist Democratic donor community that Giannoulias remained viable despite the bank controversy. At the end of May, Kirk’s campaign had to deal with Kirk’s series of embellishments about his military career. Most polls show the contest in a deadlock at this point. This morning in Chicago, Giannoulias is hosting a press conference where he is expected to highlight Kirk’s opposition to Wall Street reform—a Senate vote is possible today on the overhaul bill—and on Kirk’s accepting donations from the financial services industry. Kirk voted against the House version of the main Wall Street reform bill. Both Kirk and
Giannoulias devote an enormous amount of time to fund-raising, with most of it deliberately kept out of public view. On Wednesday in Washington, Kirk hosted a low dollar fund-raiser aimed at young Republicans and last week brought in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for fund-raisers in Jacksonville and Quincy, Illinois. Earlier this week, Gianoulias was in Los Angles and Vancouver for fund-raising.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/2500904,giannoulias-campaign-money-071510.article
WASHINGTON—Illinois Democrat Senate Alexi Giannoulias raised just over $900,000 in the second quarter ending June 30 and has over $1 million cash on hand, with most of the money coming in June, campaign spokesman Kathleen Strand told the Chicago Sun-Times. GOP Senate rival Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) campaign said earlier this month that Kirk raised $2.3 million in the second quarter and has about $3.9 million cash on hand.
Giannoulias’ fund-raising was hobbled most of the last quarter because of a cloud over him because of the April failure of his family owned Broadway Bank. Giannoulias, the state treasurer, is also declining to accept donations from federal lobbyists and corporate political action committees. Kirk has been attacking Giannoulias for his tenure at the bank—calling him a “mob banker” and in the past weeks also criticized Giannoulias because he owed no 2009 income taxes because of the bank failure. People started writing Giannoulias checks again when his campaign showed it was surviving the Kirk hits over the bank failure and the Obama White House sent signals of support with a string of figures fund-raising for Giannoulias, including Vice President Biden, former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina. Senior White House advisor David Axelrod is in Chicago on July 25 for a Giannoulias fund-raiser. While all these events have been small, they went a message to the activist Democratic donor community that Giannoulias remained viable despite the bank controversy. At the end of May, Kirk’s campaign had to deal with Kirk’s series of embellishments about his military career. Most polls show the contest in a deadlock at this point. This morning in Chicago, Giannoulias is hosting a press conference where he is expected to highlight Kirk’s opposition to Wall Street reform—a Senate vote is possible today on the overhaul bill—and on Kirk’s accepting donations from the financial services industry. Kirk voted against the House version of the main Wall Street reform bill. Both Kirk and
Giannoulias devote an enormous amount of time to fund-raising, with most of it deliberately kept out of public view. On Wednesday in Washington, Kirk hosted a low dollar fund-raiser aimed at young Republicans and last week brought in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for fund-raisers in Jacksonville and Quincy, Illinois. Earlier this week, Gianoulias was in Los Angles and Vancouver for fund-raising.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/2500904,giannoulias-campaign-money-071510.article
Republicans Top Democrats Raising Cash for Open Senate Seats
July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Republicans competing for open U.S. Senate seats in Florida and six other states as a group raised millions of dollars more than the Democratic contenders in 2010’s second quarter.
Marco Rubio, the Republican candidate in Florida, brought in more than $4.5 million, his campaign said. His Democratic opponent, Representative Kendrick Meek, raised more than $1 million, according to his website. The independent candidate, Governor Charlie Crist, toted up $1.8 million.
Republicans in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania also out-raised rivals from April 1 through June 30. A backlash against Democrats, who control Congress and the White House, may be boosting fundraising for Republicans such as Rubio, a former state house speaker.
“The second-quarter results suggest a classic cycle of donors deciding this is a good year for Republicans, giving them money and reinforcing the existing advantage of national tides,” said Linda Fowler, a government professor at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Another sign of trouble for Democrats showed up in Nevada. Former Republican state legislator Sharron Angle toted up almost $2.6 million in her bid to unseat Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, including $2.2 million in the last 42 days of the quarter. Reid brought in more than $2.4 million during the period, his campaign said.
Boxer, Lincoln
Other Democratic incumbents fared better in the quarter. Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, California Senator Barbara Boxer and Colorado Senator Michael Bennet brought in more campaign cash than Republican challengers.
The money race in Washington state was closer. Democratic Senator Patty Murray reported raising $1.6 million over the three-month period, while former Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi said he raised about $1.4 million in a month after deciding to challenge Murray.
All Senate candidates had to postmark their quarterly reports to the Federal Election Commission by yesterday. Not all of them have released copies of their filings, and many have only shared total amounts.
In Pennsylvania, former Republican Representative Patrick Toomey said he raised $3.1 million in the quarter, compared with almost $2 million for Democratic Representative Joe Sestak. Sestak’s campaign said he raised about $1.6 million in June, buoyed by a May 18 primary win over Senator Arlen Specter.
Ohio Figures
Former Ohio Representative Rob Portman, a Republican, reported raising almost $2.7 million in the race to succeed retiring Republican Senator George Voinovich. The Democratic candidate, Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher, raised more than $1 million, his campaign said.
Illinois Republican Representative Mark Kirk raised $2.3 million, compared with about $900,000 for state treasurer and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, their campaigns said. The two are vying for the Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama and now occupied by retiring Democrat Roland Burris.
“There’s greater political energy on the Republican side right now, which spills over into donation patterns,” said Rogan Kersh, a public policy professor at New York University.
Missouri Republican Representative Roy Blunt brought in about $2.2 million, compared with more than $1.5 million for Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, according to their campaigns. They are seeking a seat held by retiring Republican Kit Bond.
Indiana Race
In Indiana, former Republican Senator Dan Coats brought in more than $1.7 million in the quarter, including a $200,000 loan from himself. Democratic Representative Brad Ellsworth raised more than $600,000, his campaign said. They are competing to replace retiring Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.
Republican Kelly Ayotte, a former state attorney general, raised $720,007 in New Hampshire as she vies for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg, according to a copy of her FEC filing supplied by the campaign. Representative Paul Hodes, a Democrat, raised $605,191.
“The biggest factor for the elections will be the economy,” said Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington. “If it improves substantially by the time of the election, then Democrats will start raising more money.”
Fiorina Loans
Boxer, the Democratic incumbent in California, brought in $4.6 million in the quarter. That compared with more than $3 million for her Republican challenger, former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina, a Republican. Fiorina’s total included at least $1.1 million in loans she made to her campaign.
In Arkansas, Lincoln raised almost $2.7 million, compared with $622,912 for Republican Representative John Boozman, their campaigns said.
In Colorado, Bennet raised more than $1.2 million, his campaign said. His challenger in the state’s Aug. 10 primary, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, hadn’t reported as of late yesterday. In the Republican primary contest, former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton raised more than $900,000 and Ken Buck, a county prosecutor, took in $420,592.
The money race in Kentucky was close. Republican Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, said he raised more than $1.1 million. Democrat Jack Conway, the state attorney general, said he brought in $1.4 million, including a $400,000 loan from himself to the campaign. They are vying to replace retiring Republican Jim Bunning.
--With assistance from John McCormick and Jonathan Salant in Washington. Editors: Don Frederick, Bob Drummond.
To contact the reporters on this story: Kristin Jensen in Washington at kjensen@bloomberg.net; Patricia Laya in Washington at playa1@bloomberg.net
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-16/republicans-top-democrats-raising-cash-for-open-senate-seats.html
Marco Rubio, the Republican candidate in Florida, brought in more than $4.5 million, his campaign said. His Democratic opponent, Representative Kendrick Meek, raised more than $1 million, according to his website. The independent candidate, Governor Charlie Crist, toted up $1.8 million.
Republicans in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania also out-raised rivals from April 1 through June 30. A backlash against Democrats, who control Congress and the White House, may be boosting fundraising for Republicans such as Rubio, a former state house speaker.
“The second-quarter results suggest a classic cycle of donors deciding this is a good year for Republicans, giving them money and reinforcing the existing advantage of national tides,” said Linda Fowler, a government professor at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Another sign of trouble for Democrats showed up in Nevada. Former Republican state legislator Sharron Angle toted up almost $2.6 million in her bid to unseat Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, including $2.2 million in the last 42 days of the quarter. Reid brought in more than $2.4 million during the period, his campaign said.
Boxer, Lincoln
Other Democratic incumbents fared better in the quarter. Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, California Senator Barbara Boxer and Colorado Senator Michael Bennet brought in more campaign cash than Republican challengers.
The money race in Washington state was closer. Democratic Senator Patty Murray reported raising $1.6 million over the three-month period, while former Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi said he raised about $1.4 million in a month after deciding to challenge Murray.
All Senate candidates had to postmark their quarterly reports to the Federal Election Commission by yesterday. Not all of them have released copies of their filings, and many have only shared total amounts.
In Pennsylvania, former Republican Representative Patrick Toomey said he raised $3.1 million in the quarter, compared with almost $2 million for Democratic Representative Joe Sestak. Sestak’s campaign said he raised about $1.6 million in June, buoyed by a May 18 primary win over Senator Arlen Specter.
Ohio Figures
Former Ohio Representative Rob Portman, a Republican, reported raising almost $2.7 million in the race to succeed retiring Republican Senator George Voinovich. The Democratic candidate, Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher, raised more than $1 million, his campaign said.
Illinois Republican Representative Mark Kirk raised $2.3 million, compared with about $900,000 for state treasurer and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, their campaigns said. The two are vying for the Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama and now occupied by retiring Democrat Roland Burris.
“There’s greater political energy on the Republican side right now, which spills over into donation patterns,” said Rogan Kersh, a public policy professor at New York University.
Missouri Republican Representative Roy Blunt brought in about $2.2 million, compared with more than $1.5 million for Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, according to their campaigns. They are seeking a seat held by retiring Republican Kit Bond.
Indiana Race
In Indiana, former Republican Senator Dan Coats brought in more than $1.7 million in the quarter, including a $200,000 loan from himself. Democratic Representative Brad Ellsworth raised more than $600,000, his campaign said. They are competing to replace retiring Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.
Republican Kelly Ayotte, a former state attorney general, raised $720,007 in New Hampshire as she vies for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg, according to a copy of her FEC filing supplied by the campaign. Representative Paul Hodes, a Democrat, raised $605,191.
“The biggest factor for the elections will be the economy,” said Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington. “If it improves substantially by the time of the election, then Democrats will start raising more money.”
Fiorina Loans
Boxer, the Democratic incumbent in California, brought in $4.6 million in the quarter. That compared with more than $3 million for her Republican challenger, former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina, a Republican. Fiorina’s total included at least $1.1 million in loans she made to her campaign.
In Arkansas, Lincoln raised almost $2.7 million, compared with $622,912 for Republican Representative John Boozman, their campaigns said.
In Colorado, Bennet raised more than $1.2 million, his campaign said. His challenger in the state’s Aug. 10 primary, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, hadn’t reported as of late yesterday. In the Republican primary contest, former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton raised more than $900,000 and Ken Buck, a county prosecutor, took in $420,592.
The money race in Kentucky was close. Republican Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, said he raised more than $1.1 million. Democrat Jack Conway, the state attorney general, said he brought in $1.4 million, including a $400,000 loan from himself to the campaign. They are vying to replace retiring Republican Jim Bunning.
--With assistance from John McCormick and Jonathan Salant in Washington. Editors: Don Frederick, Bob Drummond.
To contact the reporters on this story: Kristin Jensen in Washington at kjensen@bloomberg.net; Patricia Laya in Washington at playa1@bloomberg.net
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-16/republicans-top-democrats-raising-cash-for-open-senate-seats.html
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Brady Campaign Raises $3.6 Million, Announces Ron Gidwitz as Campaign Chair.
Chicago Daily Observer 15 July 2010
Chicago – Brady for Illinois today announced it raised $3.6 million in campaign contributions through the first half of this year.
In a report to be filed by July 20 with the State Board of Elections for the reporting period January 1st to June 30th, the Brady campaign will report contributions from every one of the state’s 102 counties. The campaign received contributions from over 4,200 individual donors, 2,500 of which were donations under $100.
Through June 30th, the campaign had approximately $2.3 million on hand.
The campaign also today announced the addition of businessman and long time Republican Party leader Ron Gidwitz as Chairman of Brady for Illinois.
“Bill Brady is the right candidate for Illinois, and I’m proud to support him,” Gidwitz said. “Bill understands we must stop runaway spending and tax hikes, and start bringing real jobs back to Illinois.”
”I’m excited about leading a strong team to help Bill win in November, and to put Illinois back on track starting Day One,“ Gidwitz said.
Mr. Gidwitz is a partner in Chicago’s GCG Partners. The former CEO and President of Fortune 500 consumer products company Helene Curtis also serves as President and Founder of Students First Illinois, a non-partisan statewide coalition of private individuals and community organizations working to improve education in Illinois.
Mr. Gidwitz is active in the Chicago business and arts communities. He was named Crain’s Chicago Business Executive of the Year in 1988. He has served as Chairman of the Illinois State Board of Education. He is a member of the Board of Trustees/Directors for the Field Museum, Rush University Medical Center, the Museum of Science and Industry, and Lyric Opera of Chicago. He also serves as Governor of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
Additionally, he has served as Chairman of the following organizations: The Economic Development Commission of the City of Chicago, the Board of Trustees of the City Colleges of Chicago, the Chicago Central Area Committee and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
Editor’s Note Ron Gidwitz is the Chairman of the Board of Directorsof the Chicago Daily Observer
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/brady-campaign-raises-3-6-million-announces-ron-gidwitz-as-campaign-chair/
Chicago – Brady for Illinois today announced it raised $3.6 million in campaign contributions through the first half of this year.
In a report to be filed by July 20 with the State Board of Elections for the reporting period January 1st to June 30th, the Brady campaign will report contributions from every one of the state’s 102 counties. The campaign received contributions from over 4,200 individual donors, 2,500 of which were donations under $100.
Through June 30th, the campaign had approximately $2.3 million on hand.
The campaign also today announced the addition of businessman and long time Republican Party leader Ron Gidwitz as Chairman of Brady for Illinois.
“Bill Brady is the right candidate for Illinois, and I’m proud to support him,” Gidwitz said. “Bill understands we must stop runaway spending and tax hikes, and start bringing real jobs back to Illinois.”
”I’m excited about leading a strong team to help Bill win in November, and to put Illinois back on track starting Day One,“ Gidwitz said.
Mr. Gidwitz is a partner in Chicago’s GCG Partners. The former CEO and President of Fortune 500 consumer products company Helene Curtis also serves as President and Founder of Students First Illinois, a non-partisan statewide coalition of private individuals and community organizations working to improve education in Illinois.
Mr. Gidwitz is active in the Chicago business and arts communities. He was named Crain’s Chicago Business Executive of the Year in 1988. He has served as Chairman of the Illinois State Board of Education. He is a member of the Board of Trustees/Directors for the Field Museum, Rush University Medical Center, the Museum of Science and Industry, and Lyric Opera of Chicago. He also serves as Governor of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
Additionally, he has served as Chairman of the following organizations: The Economic Development Commission of the City of Chicago, the Board of Trustees of the City Colleges of Chicago, the Chicago Central Area Committee and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
Editor’s Note Ron Gidwitz is the Chairman of the Board of Directorsof the Chicago Daily Observer
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/brady-campaign-raises-3-6-million-announces-ron-gidwitz-as-campaign-chair/
How Elena Kagan helped "queer" Harvard Law School
Will she now help "queer" the US Supreme Court's decisions?
POSTED: June 28, 2010 UPDATED: June 30, 2010
by Amy Contrada and Brian Camenker, MassResistance
with Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality
(c) 2010 MassResistance
Introduction
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.
Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.
Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.
There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.
Kagan did her best to change a generation of Harvard-educated lawyers. Will she do the same to America?
Highlights of Elena Kagan’s Record as Dean at Harvard Law School, 2003-2009 (documentation in following section):
Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger community.
Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a "Justice Kagan" on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists -- when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?
Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein to teach "queer" legal theory. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as taking up “newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck)” as well as "polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors."
Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law course by “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by her calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein (currently Obama's regulatory czar) who has written in support of polygamy and other free-for-all marriage relationships.
Kagan engaged in ongoing, radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.
Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them -- deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.
Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals.
Kagan followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations -- within a month of meeting with a Harvard Law School GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus.
Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign (during her tenure) to make the campus “trans inclusive” -- using Harvard’s “gender identity” nondiscrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Read: allow men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)
As a likely result of Kagan's engagement, Harvard has become so committed to radical transsexual activism that its health insurance policy now partially covers “sex-change” breast “treatments” for transsexuals (either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are). Where does Kagan stand on transgenderism and transsexuality and the law today? It's very possible this question will come before the courts as trans activists make their demands on government health care.
The following is a more in-depth treatment of the pro-homosexuality and pro-transgender activism that took place during Kagan’s tenure as Dean of the Harvard Law School (2003-2009):
. Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School -- and the larger community.
Kagan moderated panel on "GLBT Law" (with Chai Feldblum) at Harvard Gay & Lesbian Caucus event.
In September 2008, Kagan was a major participant at the 25th reunion of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus, titled “A Celebration of LGBT Life at Harvard." She was Moderator for their panel discussion on "The State of the Law: Reflections on the Past Twenty-Five Years and Thoughts about the Future -- A discussion of LGBT legal developments and trends by leading legal scholars." Note that “trends” were discussed along with “developments” -- which could have included “gay marriage”, adoption by homosexuals, overturning remaining state anti-sodomy statutes, homosexuals in the military, etc.
Among the panelists at the HGLC 25th Anniversary panel was Professor Chai Feldblum (from Georgetown University), an open lesbian and leading GLBT legal strategist. (She graduated from Harvard Law School the year before Kagan.) Feldblum claims advocating for homosexuality is a “moral” issue, and admits that the battle for legal “rights” between pro-homosexual advocates and people of faith (seeking to protect their legal right as Americans to oppose homosexuality) is a “zero-sum game.” She openly advocates legalizing polygamous households.
Moreover, Feldblum, who has since been appointed by President Obama to be a Commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has stated that she can think of few situations in which religious rights (to act on one’s opposition to homosexuality) would triumph in the courts over homosexuals demanding their “rights” based on “sexual orientation non-discrimination.” “Gays win, Christians lose,” she said at one public policy discussion. (Feldblum also runs a website devoted to overturning the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and the ban on homosexuals in the military.)
Does a recording or transcript exist from this HGLC event? Does Kagan subscribe to Feldblum’s view that homosexuality-based “rights” take precedence over the liberty of people of faith to act on their belief that homosexual practice is wrong?
Re-shaping the Law School curriculum
In her role as Dean, Kagan oversaw the HLS curriculum and new faculty appointments. Thus, she must have endorsed the following HLS offerings as legitimate subjects and viewpoints (i.e., “gay rights” and “transgender rights” are true civil rights; any disagreement or disapproval is therefore illegal discrimination). One of her major efforts as Dean was modernizing the curriculum (including eliminating a required Constitution course, and instead requiring international law courses; “As Harvard Law Dean…,” CNS News, May 28, 2010). She was clearly paying close attention to the curriculum.
"Queer theory" legal scholar William Rubenstein
Kagan brought a pioneering GLBT legal advocate and "scholar", William B. Rubenstein, to HLS from UCLA, first as a Visiting Professor, then as a tenured professor. (Both were HLS Class of 1986.)
In a memoir – also the keynote speech he delivered at the September 2003 HLS GLBT reunion (with Kagan perhaps in the audience?), Rubenstein waxed poetical about his sexual experiences, desires, and scholarship. He describes his involvement with ACT-UP in the 1980s (and later gave a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School in conjunction with a celebratory Harvard Museum exhibit on ACT-UP in 2009). He explained how he had to alter his planned GLBT law course at HLS (Spring 2004) after the Lawrence v. Texas and Massachusetts “gay marriage” rulings:
In my new guise, I was hired on May 19, 2003 by the Harvard Law School as a visiting professor to teach a January 2004 course on sexual orientation law. … it was with mixed feelings that I reorganized my Hardwick-centric course away from its gay focus. Labeling the new product Law & Sexuality, I took up newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck), as well as the gauntlet thrown down by Justice Scalia, dissenting in Lawrence (polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors). … And yet Harvard Law School itself has not retained many of its alienating features of old. My own classmate Elena Kagan is now Dean; another classmate, Carol Steiker, who had written her journal Note arguing for heightened scrutiny of classifications based on sexual orientation, now a professor; and one of my own students from a 1995 Yale course on Queer Theory, Ryan Goodman, now a member of the Harvard faculty. Fifty-four Harvard Law professors signed an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment, Congress’s insistence that the military be permitted to recruit at the law school, recruit, that is, in direct violation of the law school’s, the university’s, the city’s, and the state’s anti-discrimination policies. No longer do gay law books represent the occasional oasis in the Saharan library. (pp. 330-1, emphasis added.)
More important, in his 2003 reunion speech, Rubenstein challenged the Harvard Law School to work harder to queer its curriculum and culture:
And so my message, to collect the lessons: our [gay] children, figuratively speaking, come to Harvard seeking a home; they bring with them a wondrous spirit that renews the life of the community regularly; but what they “go into” here at Harvard is not what it is at other institutions around the country. Whose law school is it? Why not ours?
Imagine the possibilities: student scholarships; fellowships for graduates to work on queer issues or to assist them in becoming legal scholars; funds to expand Harvard’s collection of gay materials; funds to support scholars to come to Harvard to teach and write; research and travel money to facilitate the efforts of Professor Halley and other Harvard faculty working on these issues; an endowed speaker series providing a forum for the exchange of ideas among scholars, lawyers, judges, and law students; a chair. Such programs would both make Harvard a more welcoming place and help Harvard contribute more to intellectual discourse on gay issues. Harvard should aspire to lead, and we alums should aspire to make sure that happens. After all: Aren’t we enlarged by the scale of what we’re able todesire? Still time. Still time to change…. (pp. 333, emphasis added.)
Did Elena Kagan hear and accept his challenge?
Here's the description of Rubenstein's course " Sexual Orientation and the Law."
Janet Halley and transgender law
Professor Janet Halley (an "out" lesbian who self-identifies as a “gay man”) was elevated to a named chair professorship by Dean Kagan. (See the video of Kagan’s announcement on the Senate website: September 17, 2007.) Halley may have provided the inspiration to Kagan to go after the military recruiters in her 1999 book on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”: Don’t: A Reader’s Guide to the Military’s Anti-Gay Policy. She teaches family law, discrimination, and legal theory; she recently taught a course entitled “The Poetics of Sexual Injury.”
As Professor Rubenstein described Halley in his keynote speech cited above:
Most importantly, Harvard’s faculty now includes the country’s single most interesting and provocative queer law scholar, Janet Halley, hired away from Stanford.
Professor Halley identifies herself as a member of the LGBT community in the law professors’ directory—the first full member of the Harvard faculty to do so. Professor Halley’s work, however, challenges the identity-based nature of social movements, investigating whether identity is not, ultimately, as imprisoning as it is liberating. In a unique demonstration that the personal is political, Professor Halley refers to herself as a “gay man.” (pp. 331, emphasis added.)
HLS offered a Transgender Law course (in 2007) taught by Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney from the national Lambda Law organization:
“As evidence of the increasing visibility of transgender people, Harvard Law School is offering a seminar on transgender law next spring taught by [out lesbian] Professor Janet Halley and [transsexual] Dean Spade, founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, which is dedicated to serving the needs of low-income people of color who are transgender, intersex, or gender non-conforming.” (“Lambda lawyer discusses challenges facing transgendered,” Harvard Law Record, April 25, 2008; emphasis added.)
LGBT Law Clinic and "Career Guide"
The LGBT Law Clinic of HLS was apparently established during Kagan’s tenure as Dean. Kagan was pushing students to engage in “public interest law” and “clinical” experience." This clinic was one recommended choice. Its director, Robert Greenwald, also taught courses at HLS including “Family, Domestic Violence and LGBT Law” (in 2009).
HLS issued its “LGBT Rights Law: A Career Guide” in 2007. It lists recommended courses to take for a career in LGBT law.
Catherine MacKinnon - rape, lesbianism, prostitution, etc.
Kagan brought radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon to Harvard as Visiting Professor in 2007-8 for an “inquiry into the relationship between sex inequality in society and sex equality under law... Concrete issues--employment discrimination, family, rape, sexual harassment, lesbian and gay rights, abortion, prostitution, pornography--focus discussion through cases. Racism, class, and transsexuality are considered throughout.”
Forum on hate crimes and transgender issues for Gov. candidates
Also at HLS while Kagan was Dean: In September 2006, a forum with the Massachusetts Democrat Governor candidates was cosponsored by HLS Lambda, InNews Weekly (a defunct radical GLBT Boston newspaper), and the Boston Pride Committee, and covered by the National Association of Lesbian and Gay Journalists. It focused on “hate crimes” and transgender issues – once again demonstrating the extremism of HLS Lambda. (MassResistance blog, September 14, 2006.)
Mass. Governor Candidates Chris Gabrieli (L) and Deval Patrick (R) at GLBT Forum, Harvard Law School, Sept. 12, 2006 (Bay Windows photo)
II. Kagan took part in functions and forums of radical GLBT groups at Harvard University – and apparently followed their lead on issues from banning military recruiters on campus, to increasing GLBT “visibility” in the HLS curriculum.
Kagan attended the first HLS GLBT Alumni reunion in 2003.
Kagan attended the first reunion of HLS GLBT alumni in September 2003. (Note the inclusion of “T” for “transgender” alumni.) Reportedly, it was the first event of its kind in the nation. Kagan graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986. Did she attend as a GLBT alumna, or in her role as Dean? She was, at least, at the reunion’s concluding dinner, according to the Harvard Crimson. The Crimson described the event:
Celebratory at times, solemn at others, alumni and current students marked the anniversary Saturday with anecdotes about the personal challenges they faced, the battle they continue to fight to keep military recruiters off campus and the need for classroom instruction in legal issues pertaining to homosexuality.
During the second discussion, titled "Lambda Today: Current Issues and Challenges Facing GLBT Students at HLS," a student panel expressed their dissatisfaction with the efforts that the faculty and administration are making to address issues facing GLBT students. They highlighted the University’s decision to continue to allow military recruiters on campus, even though their presence violates Harvard’s non-discrimination policy...
At the reunion’s final event, a dinner held at the Hyatt Regency hotel, HLS Dean Elena Kagan renewed her commitment to improving student life for all students on campus ... (“HLS Holds Nation’s First Ever GLBT Reunion,” Harvard Crimson, 9-22-03; emphasis added.)
What role did Kagan play at this event? Is there a recording or transcript of any formal comments she may have made?
Within a month, Kagan was agreeing with the demand made by the GLBT radical students at that reunion: banning military recruiters on campus.
Notably, the keynote speaker for that HLS GLBT reunion was radical queer legal scholar and Kagan’s Class of 1986 classmate, Professor William Rubenstein (then at UCLA, but about to teach a course at HLS on sexual orientation and the law as Visiting Professor). In his speech noted above, “My Harvard Law School ” (available on the Harvard website), he challenged the school to “queer” its curriculum and culture.
POSTED: June 28, 2010 UPDATED: June 30, 2010
by Amy Contrada and Brian Camenker, MassResistance
with Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality
(c) 2010 MassResistance
Introduction
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.
Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.
Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.
There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.
Kagan did her best to change a generation of Harvard-educated lawyers. Will she do the same to America?
Highlights of Elena Kagan’s Record as Dean at Harvard Law School, 2003-2009 (documentation in following section):
Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger community.
Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a "Justice Kagan" on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists -- when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?
Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein to teach "queer" legal theory. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as taking up “newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck)” as well as "polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors."
Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law course by “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by her calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein (currently Obama's regulatory czar) who has written in support of polygamy and other free-for-all marriage relationships.
Kagan engaged in ongoing, radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.
Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them -- deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.
Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals.
Kagan followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations -- within a month of meeting with a Harvard Law School GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus.
Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign (during her tenure) to make the campus “trans inclusive” -- using Harvard’s “gender identity” nondiscrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Read: allow men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)
As a likely result of Kagan's engagement, Harvard has become so committed to radical transsexual activism that its health insurance policy now partially covers “sex-change” breast “treatments” for transsexuals (either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are). Where does Kagan stand on transgenderism and transsexuality and the law today? It's very possible this question will come before the courts as trans activists make their demands on government health care.
The following is a more in-depth treatment of the pro-homosexuality and pro-transgender activism that took place during Kagan’s tenure as Dean of the Harvard Law School (2003-2009):
. Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School -- and the larger community.
Kagan moderated panel on "GLBT Law" (with Chai Feldblum) at Harvard Gay & Lesbian Caucus event.
In September 2008, Kagan was a major participant at the 25th reunion of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus, titled “A Celebration of LGBT Life at Harvard." She was Moderator for their panel discussion on "The State of the Law: Reflections on the Past Twenty-Five Years and Thoughts about the Future -- A discussion of LGBT legal developments and trends by leading legal scholars." Note that “trends” were discussed along with “developments” -- which could have included “gay marriage”, adoption by homosexuals, overturning remaining state anti-sodomy statutes, homosexuals in the military, etc.
Among the panelists at the HGLC 25th Anniversary panel was Professor Chai Feldblum (from Georgetown University), an open lesbian and leading GLBT legal strategist. (She graduated from Harvard Law School the year before Kagan.) Feldblum claims advocating for homosexuality is a “moral” issue, and admits that the battle for legal “rights” between pro-homosexual advocates and people of faith (seeking to protect their legal right as Americans to oppose homosexuality) is a “zero-sum game.” She openly advocates legalizing polygamous households.
Moreover, Feldblum, who has since been appointed by President Obama to be a Commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has stated that she can think of few situations in which religious rights (to act on one’s opposition to homosexuality) would triumph in the courts over homosexuals demanding their “rights” based on “sexual orientation non-discrimination.” “Gays win, Christians lose,” she said at one public policy discussion. (Feldblum also runs a website devoted to overturning the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and the ban on homosexuals in the military.)
Does a recording or transcript exist from this HGLC event? Does Kagan subscribe to Feldblum’s view that homosexuality-based “rights” take precedence over the liberty of people of faith to act on their belief that homosexual practice is wrong?
Re-shaping the Law School curriculum
In her role as Dean, Kagan oversaw the HLS curriculum and new faculty appointments. Thus, she must have endorsed the following HLS offerings as legitimate subjects and viewpoints (i.e., “gay rights” and “transgender rights” are true civil rights; any disagreement or disapproval is therefore illegal discrimination). One of her major efforts as Dean was modernizing the curriculum (including eliminating a required Constitution course, and instead requiring international law courses; “As Harvard Law Dean…,” CNS News, May 28, 2010). She was clearly paying close attention to the curriculum.
"Queer theory" legal scholar William Rubenstein
Kagan brought a pioneering GLBT legal advocate and "scholar", William B. Rubenstein, to HLS from UCLA, first as a Visiting Professor, then as a tenured professor. (Both were HLS Class of 1986.)
In a memoir – also the keynote speech he delivered at the September 2003 HLS GLBT reunion (with Kagan perhaps in the audience?), Rubenstein waxed poetical about his sexual experiences, desires, and scholarship. He describes his involvement with ACT-UP in the 1980s (and later gave a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School in conjunction with a celebratory Harvard Museum exhibit on ACT-UP in 2009). He explained how he had to alter his planned GLBT law course at HLS (Spring 2004) after the Lawrence v. Texas and Massachusetts “gay marriage” rulings:
In my new guise, I was hired on May 19, 2003 by the Harvard Law School as a visiting professor to teach a January 2004 course on sexual orientation law. … it was with mixed feelings that I reorganized my Hardwick-centric course away from its gay focus. Labeling the new product Law & Sexuality, I took up newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck), as well as the gauntlet thrown down by Justice Scalia, dissenting in Lawrence (polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors). … And yet Harvard Law School itself has not retained many of its alienating features of old. My own classmate Elena Kagan is now Dean; another classmate, Carol Steiker, who had written her journal Note arguing for heightened scrutiny of classifications based on sexual orientation, now a professor; and one of my own students from a 1995 Yale course on Queer Theory, Ryan Goodman, now a member of the Harvard faculty. Fifty-four Harvard Law professors signed an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment, Congress’s insistence that the military be permitted to recruit at the law school, recruit, that is, in direct violation of the law school’s, the university’s, the city’s, and the state’s anti-discrimination policies. No longer do gay law books represent the occasional oasis in the Saharan library. (pp. 330-1, emphasis added.)
More important, in his 2003 reunion speech, Rubenstein challenged the Harvard Law School to work harder to queer its curriculum and culture:
And so my message, to collect the lessons: our [gay] children, figuratively speaking, come to Harvard seeking a home; they bring with them a wondrous spirit that renews the life of the community regularly; but what they “go into” here at Harvard is not what it is at other institutions around the country. Whose law school is it? Why not ours?
Imagine the possibilities: student scholarships; fellowships for graduates to work on queer issues or to assist them in becoming legal scholars; funds to expand Harvard’s collection of gay materials; funds to support scholars to come to Harvard to teach and write; research and travel money to facilitate the efforts of Professor Halley and other Harvard faculty working on these issues; an endowed speaker series providing a forum for the exchange of ideas among scholars, lawyers, judges, and law students; a chair. Such programs would both make Harvard a more welcoming place and help Harvard contribute more to intellectual discourse on gay issues. Harvard should aspire to lead, and we alums should aspire to make sure that happens. After all: Aren’t we enlarged by the scale of what we’re able todesire? Still time. Still time to change…. (pp. 333, emphasis added.)
Did Elena Kagan hear and accept his challenge?
Here's the description of Rubenstein's course " Sexual Orientation and the Law."
Janet Halley and transgender law
Professor Janet Halley (an "out" lesbian who self-identifies as a “gay man”) was elevated to a named chair professorship by Dean Kagan. (See the video of Kagan’s announcement on the Senate website: September 17, 2007.) Halley may have provided the inspiration to Kagan to go after the military recruiters in her 1999 book on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”: Don’t: A Reader’s Guide to the Military’s Anti-Gay Policy. She teaches family law, discrimination, and legal theory; she recently taught a course entitled “The Poetics of Sexual Injury.”
As Professor Rubenstein described Halley in his keynote speech cited above:
Most importantly, Harvard’s faculty now includes the country’s single most interesting and provocative queer law scholar, Janet Halley, hired away from Stanford.
Professor Halley identifies herself as a member of the LGBT community in the law professors’ directory—the first full member of the Harvard faculty to do so. Professor Halley’s work, however, challenges the identity-based nature of social movements, investigating whether identity is not, ultimately, as imprisoning as it is liberating. In a unique demonstration that the personal is political, Professor Halley refers to herself as a “gay man.” (pp. 331, emphasis added.)
HLS offered a Transgender Law course (in 2007) taught by Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney from the national Lambda Law organization:
“As evidence of the increasing visibility of transgender people, Harvard Law School is offering a seminar on transgender law next spring taught by [out lesbian] Professor Janet Halley and [transsexual] Dean Spade, founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, which is dedicated to serving the needs of low-income people of color who are transgender, intersex, or gender non-conforming.” (“Lambda lawyer discusses challenges facing transgendered,” Harvard Law Record, April 25, 2008; emphasis added.)
LGBT Law Clinic and "Career Guide"
The LGBT Law Clinic of HLS was apparently established during Kagan’s tenure as Dean. Kagan was pushing students to engage in “public interest law” and “clinical” experience." This clinic was one recommended choice. Its director, Robert Greenwald, also taught courses at HLS including “Family, Domestic Violence and LGBT Law” (in 2009).
HLS issued its “LGBT Rights Law: A Career Guide” in 2007. It lists recommended courses to take for a career in LGBT law.
Catherine MacKinnon - rape, lesbianism, prostitution, etc.
Kagan brought radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon to Harvard as Visiting Professor in 2007-8 for an “inquiry into the relationship between sex inequality in society and sex equality under law... Concrete issues--employment discrimination, family, rape, sexual harassment, lesbian and gay rights, abortion, prostitution, pornography--focus discussion through cases. Racism, class, and transsexuality are considered throughout.”
Forum on hate crimes and transgender issues for Gov. candidates
Also at HLS while Kagan was Dean: In September 2006, a forum with the Massachusetts Democrat Governor candidates was cosponsored by HLS Lambda, InNews Weekly (a defunct radical GLBT Boston newspaper), and the Boston Pride Committee, and covered by the National Association of Lesbian and Gay Journalists. It focused on “hate crimes” and transgender issues – once again demonstrating the extremism of HLS Lambda. (MassResistance blog, September 14, 2006.)
Mass. Governor Candidates Chris Gabrieli (L) and Deval Patrick (R) at GLBT Forum, Harvard Law School, Sept. 12, 2006 (Bay Windows photo)
II. Kagan took part in functions and forums of radical GLBT groups at Harvard University – and apparently followed their lead on issues from banning military recruiters on campus, to increasing GLBT “visibility” in the HLS curriculum.
Kagan attended the first HLS GLBT Alumni reunion in 2003.
Kagan attended the first reunion of HLS GLBT alumni in September 2003. (Note the inclusion of “T” for “transgender” alumni.) Reportedly, it was the first event of its kind in the nation. Kagan graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986. Did she attend as a GLBT alumna, or in her role as Dean? She was, at least, at the reunion’s concluding dinner, according to the Harvard Crimson. The Crimson described the event:
Celebratory at times, solemn at others, alumni and current students marked the anniversary Saturday with anecdotes about the personal challenges they faced, the battle they continue to fight to keep military recruiters off campus and the need for classroom instruction in legal issues pertaining to homosexuality.
During the second discussion, titled "Lambda Today: Current Issues and Challenges Facing GLBT Students at HLS," a student panel expressed their dissatisfaction with the efforts that the faculty and administration are making to address issues facing GLBT students. They highlighted the University’s decision to continue to allow military recruiters on campus, even though their presence violates Harvard’s non-discrimination policy...
At the reunion’s final event, a dinner held at the Hyatt Regency hotel, HLS Dean Elena Kagan renewed her commitment to improving student life for all students on campus ... (“HLS Holds Nation’s First Ever GLBT Reunion,” Harvard Crimson, 9-22-03; emphasis added.)
What role did Kagan play at this event? Is there a recording or transcript of any formal comments she may have made?
Within a month, Kagan was agreeing with the demand made by the GLBT radical students at that reunion: banning military recruiters on campus.
Notably, the keynote speaker for that HLS GLBT reunion was radical queer legal scholar and Kagan’s Class of 1986 classmate, Professor William Rubenstein (then at UCLA, but about to teach a course at HLS on sexual orientation and the law as Visiting Professor). In his speech noted above, “My Harvard Law School ” (available on the Harvard website), he challenged the school to “queer” its curriculum and culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)