Sunday, September 30, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Obama vs. Romney
I was unable to post my wordles but I have them printed on paper. Romney's speech mainly consisted of talking about his life, he wasn't very specific about what he will plan to do if he becomes president. Obama on the other hand was a lot more specific about his goals concerning the government. He talked about fixing the economy, the environment, finding renewable energy sources, health insurance, social security, education, taxes, ect. It seems to me that at least he has a plan and is laying out ideas to pursue if he wins the presidency.
Obama Addresses Libya Attacks
Obama Addresses Libya Attacks, Death Of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens
Reuters | Posted: 09/12/2012 10:02 am Updated: 09/12/2012 6:37 pm
By Matt Spetalnick
President Barack Obama on Wednesday strongly condemned the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff, calling it an "outrageous attack," and ordered stepped-up security at U.S. diplomatic posts worldwide.
The targeting of U.S. diplomats, in militant violence sparked by a U.S.-made film seen as insulting the Prophet Mohammad, could raise questions about Obama's policy toward Libya in the post-Gaddafi era as he seeks re-election in November.
Obama, apparently seeking to seize the initiative in the aftermath of the attack, planned to speak to reporters in the White House Rose Garden at 10:35 a.m. EDT with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at his side.
"I have directed my administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe," Obama said in a written statement.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. diplomats were killed as they rushed away from a consulate building in Benghazi, stormed by al Qaeda-linked gunmen blaming America for the film that they said mocked the Prophet of Islam.
Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer, was identified as one of the diplomats killed, in a statement by Clinton. The names of the two others were withheld while the government notified their families.
Stevens, a 21-year veteran of the foreign service, was one of the first American officials on the ground in Benghazi during the uprising against former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi last year.
Gaddafi was ousted by rebel forces backed by NATO air power in August 2011 and was killed in October after months as a fugitive.
Obama had hailed Libya's election in July as a milestone in its post-Gaddafi democratic transition and pledged the United States would act as a partner even as he cautioned that there would still be difficult challenges ahead.
He had opted for a cautious strategy that steered clear of a dominant role for the U.S. military and faced criticism from Republican opponents at home for what was described as "leading from behind."
CAMPAIGN IMPACT
Before the full death toll and details of the Libya attack were known, Obama's Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, on Tuesday night criticized the Obama administration's initial response to violent attacks at U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya as well as Egypt.
Pushing back hard, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt criticized Romney for making a "political attack" at a time when the country was "confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya."
Obama was notified on Tuesday night that Stevens was unaccounted for and was told on Wednesday morning of his death, a White House official said.
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens," Obama said.
"Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice and partnership with nations and people around the globe and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives," he said.
Gunmen had attacked and set fire to the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, the cradle of last year's uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule, late on Tuesday evening as another assault was mounted on the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
The California-born ambassador was trying to leave the consulate building for a safer location as part of an evacuation when gunmen launched an intense attack, apparently forcing security personnel to withdraw.
A Libyan official said the diplomats were killed when "gunmen fired rockets in their direction." White House and State Department statements gave no details on exactly how the four were killed.
"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.
Clinton also denounced the attack, calling it "vicious and violent."
(Additional reporting by Margaret Chadbourn; editing by Bill Trott and Mohammad Zargham)
President Barack Obama on Wednesday strongly condemned the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff, calling it an "outrageous attack," and ordered stepped-up security at U.S. diplomatic posts worldwide.
The targeting of U.S. diplomats, in militant violence sparked by a U.S.-made film seen as insulting the Prophet Mohammad, could raise questions about Obama's policy toward Libya in the post-Gaddafi era as he seeks re-election in November.
Obama, apparently seeking to seize the initiative in the aftermath of the attack, planned to speak to reporters in the White House Rose Garden at 10:35 a.m. EDT with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at his side.
"I have directed my administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe," Obama said in a written statement.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. diplomats were killed as they rushed away from a consulate building in Benghazi, stormed by al Qaeda-linked gunmen blaming America for the film that they said mocked the Prophet of Islam.
Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer, was identified as one of the diplomats killed, in a statement by Clinton. The names of the two others were withheld while the government notified their families.
Gaddafi was ousted by rebel forces backed by NATO air power in August 2011 and was killed in October after months as a fugitive.
Obama had hailed Libya's election in July as a milestone in its post-Gaddafi democratic transition and pledged the United States would act as a partner even as he cautioned that there would still be difficult challenges ahead.
He had opted for a cautious strategy that steered clear of a dominant role for the U.S. military and faced criticism from Republican opponents at home for what was described as "leading from behind."
CAMPAIGN IMPACT
Before the full death toll and details of the Libya attack were known, Obama's Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, on Tuesday night criticized the Obama administration's initial response to violent attacks at U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya as well as Egypt.
Pushing back hard, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt criticized Romney for making a "political attack" at a time when the country was "confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya."
Obama was notified on Tuesday night that Stevens was unaccounted for and was told on Wednesday morning of his death, a White House official said.
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens," Obama said.
"Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice and partnership with nations and people around the globe and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives," he said.
Gunmen had attacked and set fire to the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, the cradle of last year's uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule, late on Tuesday evening as another assault was mounted on the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
The California-born ambassador was trying to leave the consulate building for a safer location as part of an evacuation when gunmen launched an intense attack, apparently forcing security personnel to withdraw.
A Libyan official said the diplomats were killed when "gunmen fired rockets in their direction." White House and State Department statements gave no details on exactly how the four were killed.
"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.
Clinton also denounced the attack, calling it "vicious and violent."
(Additional reporting by Margaret Chadbourn; editing by Bill Trott and Mohammad Zargham)
Palin Blasting Obama
Sarah Palin: Libya, Egypt Attacks On American Facilities Show Obama Needs To Grow 'Big Stick'
"America can’t afford any more 'leading from behind' in such a dangerous world," Palin wrote in a Facebook post. "We already know that President Obama likes to 'speak softly' to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a 'big stick' to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one."
The recent clashes in Egypt and Libya provided new fodder for conservatives to target the president on foreign policy as the nation remembered the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. On Tuesday, protesters outraged over an anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, tearing down an American flag and replacing it with a pro-Islam banner. The violence was worse in Benghazi, Libya, where an attack on a U.S. consulate left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other staffers dead.
From her social media perch, Palin continued her assault on Obama, accusing him of failing with his strategy in North Africa and suggesting that he was more concerned about "softball interviews," fundraising and golfing than he was about international leadership.
"These countries represent his much touted 'Arab Spring.' How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our 'friends' in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?" she wrote. "It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists."
Palin also criticized the "outrageous" tone of the U.S. embassy in Egypt's initial response to the assault on the building, a statement not authorized by the Obama administration, which later condemned the attacks in a statement of its own from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign issued a statement echoing Palin's tone Tuesday night, though theirs sought to more directly attribute the embassy's statement to the White House.
"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," the statement read.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus framed this attempted attack more bluntly, tweeting: "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."
The White House had disavowed the statement by the embassy, which eventually reworded its dispatch. The Obama campaign responded to Romney, saying it was "shocked" that he would "choose to launch a political attack" at such a time.
Palin's whole Facebook post:
The recent clashes in Egypt and Libya provided new fodder for conservatives to target the president on foreign policy as the nation remembered the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. On Tuesday, protesters outraged over an anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, tearing down an American flag and replacing it with a pro-Islam banner. The violence was worse in Benghazi, Libya, where an attack on a U.S. consulate left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other staffers dead.
From her social media perch, Palin continued her assault on Obama, accusing him of failing with his strategy in North Africa and suggesting that he was more concerned about "softball interviews," fundraising and golfing than he was about international leadership.
"These countries represent his much touted 'Arab Spring.' How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our 'friends' in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?" she wrote. "It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists."
Palin also criticized the "outrageous" tone of the U.S. embassy in Egypt's initial response to the assault on the building, a statement not authorized by the Obama administration, which later condemned the attacks in a statement of its own from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign issued a statement echoing Palin's tone Tuesday night, though theirs sought to more directly attribute the embassy's statement to the White House.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus framed this attempted attack more bluntly, tweeting: "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."
The White House had disavowed the statement by the embassy, which eventually reworded its dispatch. The Obama campaign responded to Romney, saying it was "shocked" that he would "choose to launch a political attack" at such a time.
Palin's whole Facebook post:
Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our “friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?
It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists. I realize there must be a lot on his mind these days – what with our economy’s abysmal jobless numbers and Moody’s new warning about yet another downgrade to our nation’s credit rating due to the current administration’s failure to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. And, of course, he has a busy schedule – with all those rounds of golf, softball interviews with the “Pimp with the Limp,” and fundraising dinners with his corporate cronies. But our nation’s security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.
- Sarah Palin
Say What?
Mitt Romney Attacks President Obama Over Libya Crisis
Romney, in a statement released Tuesday night, had called the president's handling of the Libya and Egypt attacks "disgraceful." Wednesday morning, Romney hastily scrapped a campaign rally in Jacksonville, Fla., dismantling a campaign stage, and instead held a small press conference in which he repeatedly defended his criticism of the administration, slamming embassy officials in Cairo and President Obama. "When our grounds are being attacked, and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. And apology for America's values is never the right course," he said, slamming the Obama administration for "sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks."
The attacks at the consulate in Libya, and a separate incident at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, came on a day of violence and anger over rumors of an anti-Islamic film scheduled for released in the United States and circulated on the Internet.
Romney's assault on Obama was rare among Republicans. Sarah Palin and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus joined him in condemning the president, but no other significant GOP leader thought it prudent to immediately single out the president for criticism. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) all put out statements on the crisis, none attacking Obama.
A host of Republican foreign policy officials were quick to blast the "utter disaster" that was Romney's response.
Romney's reference to an "apology for America's values" was directed at a statement the U.S. Embassy in Cairo put out on Tuesday morning, but that statement, which was itself responding to the outrage over the anti-Islamic film, was issued before the embassy was attacked, despite Romney's statement to the contrary. What's more, the statement does not apologize for America's values, but rather supports a founding American value, religious tolerance, while referencing the "universal right of free speech." The statement in full:
Romney's rash condemnation of the president, released after it was known that there had been U.S. fatalities, calls to mind Sen. John McCain's snap decision in 2008 to suspend his presidential campaign to deal with the financial crisis. The move was judged deeply unpresidential and contributed to his defeat.
After the Cairo embassy's initial statement, as a mob protest outside the embassy heated up, even entering the compound, and commentators in the U.S. suggested the embassy condemn the protesters, the embassy responded through its Twitter feed: "Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this."
The embassy added: "Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."
The diplomats in Cairo survived the assault on their embassy. When the protests spread to Libya, diplomats there weren't so lucky: Four U.S. State Department officials, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed in an hourslong assault. Romney responded by attacking the diplomats in Cairo.
"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, protesters were inside the grounds," said Romney at his press conference. "They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a -- a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values."
Did Romney expect the Cairo diplomats to retract their defense of religious tolerance in the face of the attack? Or did Romney expect the Obama administration to denounce the diplomats who were under siege?
"It's their administration," said Romney, referring to the embassy in Cairo. "Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also from the words of his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. The statement that came from the administration -- and the embassy is the administration -- the statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation."
Reporters in Washington have been as quick to condemn Romney as he was to condemn Obama and the embassy officials. "Unless Mitt has gamed crisis out in some manner completely invisible to Gang of 500, doubling down=most craven+ill-advised move of '12," Time's Mark Halperin tweeted, referring to the Beltway establishment.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, meanwhile, struck a somber and emotional tone, offering remembrances for the American diplomats who lost their lives in the violence.
In an appearance in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, flanked by Clinton, the president spoke about the events the night before, pledging that the incidents would "not break the bonds between the United States and Libya."
"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Obama said, referencing the anti-Islamic video, "but there is no justification for this kind of violence. None."
Libyan security workers had helped bring other American diplomats to safety during the crisis, Obama noted, and had transported the ambassador to the hospital.
"It is especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it's a city he helped to save at the height of the Libyan revolution," Obama said.
Earlier in the morning at the State Department, a shaken Clinton talked about Stevens and the other diplomats who had been killed and strongly denounced the attacks at the outpost in Libya.
"This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world," she said. "We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence."
With her eyes occasionally watering, Clinton spoke at length about Ambassador Stevens, whom she knew well and whom she had personally dispatched to Libya at the beginning to the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, to be the American attache to the rebel leadership.
"He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and began building our relationship with the Libyan revolutionaries," she said. "He risked his life to stop a tyrant, then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses."
Clinton too pledged to maintain America's relationship with Libya, although she conceded that events like those on Tuesday challenged even her certainty.
"Today many Americans are asking -- indeed, I ask myself -- how could this happen," Clinton said. "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction. This question reflects just how complicated, and at times how confounding, the world can be. But we must be clear-eyed even in our grief: This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people or the government of Libya."
The attacks at the consulate in Libya, and a separate incident at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, came on a day of violence and anger over rumors of an anti-Islamic film scheduled for released in the United States and circulated on the Internet.
Romney's assault on Obama was rare among Republicans. Sarah Palin and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus joined him in condemning the president, but no other significant GOP leader thought it prudent to immediately single out the president for criticism. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) all put out statements on the crisis, none attacking Obama.
A host of Republican foreign policy officials were quick to blast the "utter disaster" that was Romney's response.
Romney's reference to an "apology for America's values" was directed at a statement the U.S. Embassy in Cairo put out on Tuesday morning, but that statement, which was itself responding to the outrage over the anti-Islamic film, was issued before the embassy was attacked, despite Romney's statement to the contrary. What's more, the statement does not apologize for America's values, but rather supports a founding American value, religious tolerance, while referencing the "universal right of free speech." The statement in full:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Romney's rash condemnation of the president, released after it was known that there had been U.S. fatalities, calls to mind Sen. John McCain's snap decision in 2008 to suspend his presidential campaign to deal with the financial crisis. The move was judged deeply unpresidential and contributed to his defeat.
The embassy added: "Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."
The diplomats in Cairo survived the assault on their embassy. When the protests spread to Libya, diplomats there weren't so lucky: Four U.S. State Department officials, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed in an hourslong assault. Romney responded by attacking the diplomats in Cairo.
"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, protesters were inside the grounds," said Romney at his press conference. "They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a -- a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values."
Did Romney expect the Cairo diplomats to retract their defense of religious tolerance in the face of the attack? Or did Romney expect the Obama administration to denounce the diplomats who were under siege?
"It's their administration," said Romney, referring to the embassy in Cairo. "Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also from the words of his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. The statement that came from the administration -- and the embassy is the administration -- the statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation."
Reporters in Washington have been as quick to condemn Romney as he was to condemn Obama and the embassy officials. "Unless Mitt has gamed crisis out in some manner completely invisible to Gang of 500, doubling down=most craven+ill-advised move of '12," Time's Mark Halperin tweeted, referring to the Beltway establishment.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, meanwhile, struck a somber and emotional tone, offering remembrances for the American diplomats who lost their lives in the violence.
In an appearance in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, flanked by Clinton, the president spoke about the events the night before, pledging that the incidents would "not break the bonds between the United States and Libya."
"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Obama said, referencing the anti-Islamic video, "but there is no justification for this kind of violence. None."
Libyan security workers had helped bring other American diplomats to safety during the crisis, Obama noted, and had transported the ambassador to the hospital.
"It is especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it's a city he helped to save at the height of the Libyan revolution," Obama said.
Earlier in the morning at the State Department, a shaken Clinton talked about Stevens and the other diplomats who had been killed and strongly denounced the attacks at the outpost in Libya.
"This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world," she said. "We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence."
With her eyes occasionally watering, Clinton spoke at length about Ambassador Stevens, whom she knew well and whom she had personally dispatched to Libya at the beginning to the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, to be the American attache to the rebel leadership.
"He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and began building our relationship with the Libyan revolutionaries," she said. "He risked his life to stop a tyrant, then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses."
Clinton too pledged to maintain America's relationship with Libya, although she conceded that events like those on Tuesday challenged even her certainty.
"Today many Americans are asking -- indeed, I ask myself -- how could this happen," Clinton said. "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction. This question reflects just how complicated, and at times how confounding, the world can be. But we must be clear-eyed even in our grief: This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people or the government of Libya."
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Who Needs A Voter ID?
Voter ID Ruling In Pennsylvania Cited Bigoted 1869 Court Decision
A Pennsylvania judge's decision to uphold the state's tough new voter-identification law last month was based in part on a 19th century state court decision that at the time disenfranchised many Philadelphia workmen who the court didn't feel were virtuous enough to vote.
Voter rights advocates will ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday to overrule the Aug. 15 decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson. In his decision, Simpson heavily relied on an 1869 court case, Patterson v. Barlow, which legalized voting procedures uniquely for Philadelphia, with its large working class and immigrant populations.
"That process effectively disenfranchised the workmen who filled the city boarding houses at the end of the 19th century," University of Pittsburgh law professor Jessie Allen wrote in an opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Tuesday.
Simpson, in his ruling, quoted from the Patterson ruling, saying the discretion to establish voting requirements "belongs to the General Assembly, is a sound one, and cannot be reviewed by any other department of the government, except in a case of plain, palpable, and clear abuse of the power which actually infringes the rights of the electors."
What he didn't quote were the parts of the Patterson ruling warning that allowing Philadelphians to vote according to the same rules as the rest of the state would be “to place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartar hordes of our large cities, on a level with the virtuous and good man."
A reader of the election law blog run by Rick Hasen, who is a University of California Irvine voting expert and author, also noted the bigoted aspects of the Patterson ruling last month.
The court of the time wrote: “Where the population of a locality is constantly changing, and men are often unknown to their next-door neighbors; where a large number is floating upon the rivers and the sea, going and returning and incapable of identification; where low inns, restaurants and boarding-houses constantly afford the means of fraudulent additions to the lists of voters, what rule of sound reason or of constitutional law forbids the legislature from providing a means to distinguish the honest people of Philadelphia from the rogues and vagabonds who would usurp their places and rob them of their rights?"
The parties who initially sued to overturn the law, argue in their appeal of Simpson's decision that "Patterson is an anachronism, predating the modern framework of differing levels of scrutiny by more than half a century and based on outright prejudice. Patterson is no guide to a current construction of the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians."
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also cites Patterson -- in its favor -- in its Sept. 7 brief to the Supreme Court.
The use of Patterson as legal precedent is particularly relevant, because opponents of the law allege that the current Pennsylvania legislature is similarly trying to use the law to prevent certain people from voting -- in this case, demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic.
The state's voter ID bill came as Republican legislatures across the country pursued bills that would make it harder for people to vote, and register to vote. GOP supporters argue that the laws are necessary to reduce voter fraud, but voter fraud in general is extremely rare, and in-person voter fraud -- the only kind that would be affected by voter ID requirements -- is virtually nonexistent.
The opponents of the law cite ample evidence that the Pennsylvania law will in particular disenfranchise minorities.
Allen wrote in her piece: "Wrenched out of context, the legal language that the Commonwealth Court judge chose to quote from Patterson sounds like a fair basis for upholding the new voter ID law. But, in fact, the old Patterson case represents the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's shameful failure to protect elections from a law designed to make voting harder for some people than for others."
As Bob Warner reported for the Philadelphia Inquirer on Tuesday, Simpson "himself teed up" for the state's Supreme Court the issue of what level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to the legislature regarding voting procedure.
"[T]he appropriate level of scrutiny raises a substantial legal question," Simpson wrote in his opinion. "Indeed, if strict scrutiny is to be employed, I might reach a different determination on this prerequisite for a preliminary injunction."
Voter rights advocates will ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday to overrule the Aug. 15 decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson. In his decision, Simpson heavily relied on an 1869 court case, Patterson v. Barlow, which legalized voting procedures uniquely for Philadelphia, with its large working class and immigrant populations.
"That process effectively disenfranchised the workmen who filled the city boarding houses at the end of the 19th century," University of Pittsburgh law professor Jessie Allen wrote in an opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Tuesday.
Simpson, in his ruling, quoted from the Patterson ruling, saying the discretion to establish voting requirements "belongs to the General Assembly, is a sound one, and cannot be reviewed by any other department of the government, except in a case of plain, palpable, and clear abuse of the power which actually infringes the rights of the electors."
What he didn't quote were the parts of the Patterson ruling warning that allowing Philadelphians to vote according to the same rules as the rest of the state would be “to place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartar hordes of our large cities, on a level with the virtuous and good man."
A reader of the election law blog run by Rick Hasen, who is a University of California Irvine voting expert and author, also noted the bigoted aspects of the Patterson ruling last month.
The court of the time wrote: “Where the population of a locality is constantly changing, and men are often unknown to their next-door neighbors; where a large number is floating upon the rivers and the sea, going and returning and incapable of identification; where low inns, restaurants and boarding-houses constantly afford the means of fraudulent additions to the lists of voters, what rule of sound reason or of constitutional law forbids the legislature from providing a means to distinguish the honest people of Philadelphia from the rogues and vagabonds who would usurp their places and rob them of their rights?"
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also cites Patterson -- in its favor -- in its Sept. 7 brief to the Supreme Court.
The use of Patterson as legal precedent is particularly relevant, because opponents of the law allege that the current Pennsylvania legislature is similarly trying to use the law to prevent certain people from voting -- in this case, demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic.
The state's voter ID bill came as Republican legislatures across the country pursued bills that would make it harder for people to vote, and register to vote. GOP supporters argue that the laws are necessary to reduce voter fraud, but voter fraud in general is extremely rare, and in-person voter fraud -- the only kind that would be affected by voter ID requirements -- is virtually nonexistent.
The opponents of the law cite ample evidence that the Pennsylvania law will in particular disenfranchise minorities.
Allen wrote in her piece: "Wrenched out of context, the legal language that the Commonwealth Court judge chose to quote from Patterson sounds like a fair basis for upholding the new voter ID law. But, in fact, the old Patterson case represents the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's shameful failure to protect elections from a law designed to make voting harder for some people than for others."
As Bob Warner reported for the Philadelphia Inquirer on Tuesday, Simpson "himself teed up" for the state's Supreme Court the issue of what level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to the legislature regarding voting procedure.
"[T]he appropriate level of scrutiny raises a substantial legal question," Simpson wrote in his opinion. "Indeed, if strict scrutiny is to be employed, I might reach a different determination on this prerequisite for a preliminary injunction."
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Need A Lift Obama?
Obama Picked Up By Scott Van Duzer, Florida Pizza Place Owner (PHOTO)
In Florida for his bus tour on Sunday, President Barack Obama made an unannounced stop at Big Apple Pizza and Pasta in Ft. Pierce. There, the shop's owner, Scott Van Duzer, lifted the president off the ground:
In Florida for his bus tour on Sunday, President Barack Obama made an unannounced stop at Big Apple Pizza and Pasta in Ft. Pierce. There, the shop's owner, Scott Van Duzer, lifted the president off the ground:
(Photo credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
Obama entered the shop saying, "Scott, let me tell you, you are like the biggest pizza shop owner I've ever seen," according to a White House pool report.
Van Duzer, 46, is a big guy: He is 6' 3" tall and weighs 260 pounds.
After Obama was lifted up, he said "Look at that!" Man are you a powerlifter or what?"
He continued, according to the pool, talking about Van Duzer's big muscles.
"Everybody look at these guns," he said. "If I eat your pizza will I look like that?"
Van Duzer, by the way, is a registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 and says he will do so again in November.
"I don't vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him," he told the press pool.
Obama entered the shop saying, "Scott, let me tell you, you are like the biggest pizza shop owner I've ever seen," according to a White House pool report.
Van Duzer, 46, is a big guy: He is 6' 3" tall and weighs 260 pounds.
After Obama was lifted up, he said "Look at that!" Man are you a powerlifter or what?"
He continued, according to the pool, talking about Van Duzer's big muscles.
"Everybody look at these guns," he said. "If I eat your pizza will I look like that?"
Van Duzer, by the way, is a registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 and says he will do so again in November.
"I don't vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him," he told the press pool.
A War of Words Between Brown and Christie
Jerry Brown To Chris Christie: 'This Old Retread Can Beat You Any Day Of The Week' (VIDEO)
Even at age 74, California Gov. Jerry Brown is never one to back down from a challenge.
In a Sunday interview on CNN's "State Of The Union," the veteran Democrat reiterated his request to square off against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in a series of athletic events.
“I'll be 74 1/2 next month," Brown said. "And but here I am. You know, there is some experience. Hopefully, there's some wisdom. So I got kind of warmed up and went on my speech and I said, 'OK, Christie, I challenge you to a three-mile race. Try some chin-ups maybe and some pushups.'"
“Essentially saying that he's overweight?” host Candy Crowley asked.
“No, essentially says this old retread can beat you any day of the week,” Brown answered.
Back on August 27, Christie started a cross-country war of words at a Tampa, Fla. speech to California's Republican National Convention delegates. In the address, he accused the state of making a "bad choice" by electing Brown, calling the governor an "old retread."
"Jerry Brown?" Christie asked. "I mean, he won the New Jersey presidential primary over Jimmy Carter when I was 14 years old. And now I've got to sit at the National Governor's Association with this guy and have him come up to me and say, 'Gov. Christie, stop telling people that I want to raise taxes. I'm not trying to raise taxes.'"
Brown fired back a few days later, laying his competitive cards on the table by asking Christie to partake in some fitness competitions.
"There's nothing wrong with being a little retread," he said at a local union workers meeting. "Not as much hair, I've slowed down a little bit. But I have to tell you, I ran three miles in 29 minutes two nights ago. And I hereby challenge Governor Christie to a three-mile race, a push-up contest and a chin-up contest. Whatever he wants to bet, I have no doubt of the outcome."
Christie responded with little interest at a press conference last Wednesday, vowing that "Brown can have that contest with himself."
In a Sunday interview on CNN's "State Of The Union," the veteran Democrat reiterated his request to square off against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in a series of athletic events.
“I'll be 74 1/2 next month," Brown said. "And but here I am. You know, there is some experience. Hopefully, there's some wisdom. So I got kind of warmed up and went on my speech and I said, 'OK, Christie, I challenge you to a three-mile race. Try some chin-ups maybe and some pushups.'"
“Essentially saying that he's overweight?” host Candy Crowley asked.
“No, essentially says this old retread can beat you any day of the week,” Brown answered.
Back on August 27, Christie started a cross-country war of words at a Tampa, Fla. speech to California's Republican National Convention delegates. In the address, he accused the state of making a "bad choice" by electing Brown, calling the governor an "old retread."
"Jerry Brown?" Christie asked. "I mean, he won the New Jersey presidential primary over Jimmy Carter when I was 14 years old. And now I've got to sit at the National Governor's Association with this guy and have him come up to me and say, 'Gov. Christie, stop telling people that I want to raise taxes. I'm not trying to raise taxes.'"
Brown fired back a few days later, laying his competitive cards on the table by asking Christie to partake in some fitness competitions.
"There's nothing wrong with being a little retread," he said at a local union workers meeting. "Not as much hair, I've slowed down a little bit. But I have to tell you, I ran three miles in 29 minutes two nights ago. And I hereby challenge Governor Christie to a three-mile race, a push-up contest and a chin-up contest. Whatever he wants to bet, I have no doubt of the outcome."
Christie responded with little interest at a press conference last Wednesday, vowing that "Brown can have that contest with himself."
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Reflection of the government surveys
I felt that going around asking people thier opinions on certain issues in government was very interesting. It was a little awkward asking people their age, religion, ethnicity, and political preference though. But other than that it was fine, before I even started asking questions I told them it was for my government class and they happy complied. It was pretty smooth sailing. I tried to keep it a balance of adults and seniors in high school, disregarding the fact that the majority of the people I asked were females.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)