Look In The Mirror

It may seem, upon reading Politico's "House Dems seek answers on slaying," that California Representative Zoe Lofgren and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, also of California, have gotten religion about sanctuary cities (AP photo below via Politico of 7/21/15 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing),  Seung Min Kim writes

Two influential House Democrats are pushing the Obama administration for a review of federal law enforcement policies that led to the release of an undocumented immigrant now accused in the fatal shooting of a woman at a San Francisco pier this month.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who represents San Francisco, and California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the House panel on immigration, are asking for the review. They suggest in a letter being released Wednesday that Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, the suspect in Kathryn Steinle’s killing, should not have been released directly to San Francisco officials.

“Whenever an innocent person is lost to violence, as a society we should consider what steps we can take to make our communities safer,” Pelosi and Lofgren write the letter, provided to POLITICO in advance of its release Wednesday. “Moving forward, we believe San Francisco and the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice should improve communication to ensure all interests are weighed in future cases.”

No one can argue with the idea of improving communications- well, no one but sanctuary city advocates, anyway.  Min Kun continues

The letter is addressed to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Lopez Sanchez, who was under the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, was released to San Francisco law enforcement officials because he had a bench warrant for a drug offense in the city that was two decades old. Federal immigration officials had also asked the Bureau of Prisons to release Lopez Sanchez to them, but the San Francisco request took precedence.

That’s according to federal policy that calls for all criminal matters to be resolved before immigration officials take over a case, the letter says. After he was released, authorities allege, Lopez Sanchez shot and killed the 32-year-old Steinle on the pier in broad daylight on July 1.

The San Francisco request took precedence possibly because immigration violations are considered administrative, not criminal.   Still, we learn that enforcement of the law may be labeled "rigid adherence to policy," given that

“In some circumstances, rigid adherence to this policy may not actually serve the interests of justice,” Pelosi and Lofgren wrote. “Rather, where the outstanding criminal warrant pertains to a particularly old charge not involving violence or serious damage to property – as was the case here – and the state or local prosecutor is unlikely to proceed with a prosecution, there is no purpose to be served in deferring deportation.”

Pelosi and Lofgren are criticizing federal- not state- policy. They are ignoring the central issue- existence of sanctuary cities, which in a rational world might be of interest to pols concerned about "communication." They have yet to question the propriety of a city not informing the federal government when an individual in the nation illegally has been arrested for a criminal offense.

Pelosi/Lofgren refer to "a particularly old charge not involving violence or serious damage to property," which, according to this report, "involved a small amount of marijuana." But as the Los Angeles Times has reported, Lopez Sanchez previously had been convicted of "at least four felonies for possessing heroin and manufacturing narcotics and a misdemeanor conviction for inhaling toxic vapors."  And since he was apparently arrested with the marijuana, he was caught and prosecuted on three occasions by the federal government after attempting to enter the country illegally and convicted at least three times.

As the local prosecutors were aware, this was not some poor black kid who shoplifts a quart of milk from the local grocery store. This was a person who was capable of murder.  Not a likely murderer, but someone whom it was difficult to prosecute largely because local authorities had been able to avoid the issue for some sixteen years.  If the marijuana charge were to be dismissed, authorities in California had the ethical responsibility to notify ICE.

The city did not do so because
 
Handed over to the San Francisco County Sheriff's Department in March on a bench warrant for a 20-year-old marijuana sales case, he was cut loose when prosecutors declined to charge him.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had lodged an "immigration detainer" with the Sheriff's Department asking to be "notified prior to his release," but "the detainer was not honored," ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said in a statement.

The detainer was not honored, though that appears to be consistent with passage in California in 2013 of the Trust (Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools) Act, which "sets clear, uniformed standards to limit burdensome detention of aspiring citizens by local law enforcement solely on the basis of federal immigration detainer requests." Under these terms, the federal immigration detainer request could not be honored.

That quoted passage was included in a letter written in August, 2013, (successfully) urging Governor Jerry Brown (who earlier had vetoed a bill which would have limited even further the ability to hand individuals over to immigration authorities) to sign the legislation. The third signature belonged to Zoe Lofgren. The first belonged to Nancy Pelosi.

The killing of Kate Steinle was a tragedy, a crime, an abomination. it also was partly the result of one level of law enforcement defying the request of another level of law enforcement. This has happened many times before, but most notably in the events leading to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. There was a lack of communication, as Pelosi and Lofgren suggest- and they helped make it so.

Share |

Nothing Original About Trump

Writing in Salon, Sean Illing argues "the GOP sold its soul to Fox News and the broader conservative mediascape years ago."  Citing Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and even Sarah Palin, he identifies Donald Trump as only the latest manifestation of this tendency. He maintains

Trump, quite literally, is an actor; he’s delivering the lines his audience (the Republican base) wants to hear. But he’s not the first of his kind. He’s doing what many Republicans have done in recent years: pretend to run for president in order to promote his personal brand.

But Trump is not only the most recent in a long line of blowhards and poseurs. His attack is consistent with mainstream GOP politicians who have demeaned American soldiers. Joe Conason recalls

One of the most poisonous occurred in 2002, when a Georgia Republican named Saxby Chambliss ran ads suggesting that Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who had lost both legs and one arm in an accidental grenade explosion, lacked the guts to face down Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Cleland, a Democrat who had served in the Veterans Administration under President Carter, had cast a vote protecting the rights of civil service workers in the new Department of Homeland Security, thus earning him a smear at the hands of Chambliss — one of those smooth favorite sons who had nimbly avoided the Vietnam draft.

The official citation, according to Conason, reads

When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.










That didn't stop Chambliss (ad, above), who won the election, despite Cleland's vote in favor of the Iran war resolution.  Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller, a conservative who went on to support George W. Bush for re-election, condemned Chambliss because "It's disgraceful for anybody to question Max Cleland's commitment to our national security."

But it evidently wasn't disgraceful to question John Kerry's commitment to country.  When Trump recently questioned John McCain's status as a hero, John Ellis Bush responded by tweeting “Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans – particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.”  But Judd Legum of Think Progress notes

In 2004, a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spent millions of dollars attacking the military service of John Kerry, who was then the Democratic nominee for president. The group claimed that Kerry lied about his service and was awarded military honors he didn’t deserve. The basis for these claims were definitively proven false, but the group carried on with their campaign anyway. (The claims were first published in a book by Jerome Corsi, who would later gain fame for insisting that Obama had a fake birth certificate and was not born in the United States.)

After the campaign Jeb Bush, then Governor of Florida, sent a letter to George Day — a member of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth who appeared in television advertisements trashing Kerry. Day said Kerry, a recipient of the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, would “go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971.” In his letter, Bush thanks Day and the “other Swifties” for their “support of my brother in his re-election.” “I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry,” 

"Whatever one sows, that he also will reap," Paul wrote to the Galatians.  The modern Repub Party, including John Ellis Bush, has sewn the seeds of demagoguery, and out has popped Donald Trump.





Share |

An Isolated Incident- Or Not

In 1968, many Democratic activists and politicians urged New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy to challenge President Lyndon B. Johnson for the Democratic nomination for president. Believing challenging an incumbent would be an uphill battle, Kennedy demurred while the less well-known anti-war Senator, Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, took the plunge.

Following the New Hampshire primary, in which McCarthy did stunningly well (though losing), Johnson announced he would not seek re-nomination.  Soon thereafter, Kennedy reconsidered, declared his candidacy, and engaged in a hot-fought battle with Vice-President Humphrey before Kennedy was shot and killed after his victory in the critical California primary.

Humphrey was to be nominated at the Democratic convention in Chicago, which turned into a fiasco as anti-war and to a lesser extent, anti-Humphrey, protesters hit the street and in turn were hit by Mayor Richard Daley's police. The slogan of the left protesting, in part, the nomination of arguably the most progressive politician of his generation, was "the whole world is watching." The whole world may not have been watching, but the American voter was, and did not like what she was viewing. Humphrey's campaign got off to an understandably slow start and he was barely defeated by Richard Nixon in an election which at the time was the closest presidential race in history.

History probably is not repeating itself, though that would not be a safe assumption. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee of the Party but is being effectively challenged from the left by Senator Bernard Sanders, whom no one believes has a shot at the nomination- unlike Senator Elizabeth Warren, who rejected entreaties for herself to run.  (By the way: Warren is from Massachusetts. Kennedy was originally from Massachusetts.)

That is not the only echo of 1968. Time's Sam Frizell reports

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley was midsentence when the chanting began. “What side are you on black people, what side are you on!” rang the chorus of around four dozen mostly black protesters streaming into a convention hall in Phoenix, Arizona, on Saturday.

A woman named Tia Oso grabbed the microphone as the protesters stormed the room.

“We are going to hold this space and acknowledge the names of black women who have died in police custody, and then Governor O’Malley we do have questions for you!” Oso said as the former two-term governor and his interviewer, Jose Antonio Vargas, watched helplessly. “As leader of this country will you advance an agenda that will dismantle structural racism in this country?” Oso asked.

“Yes,” O’Malley managed to answered, before he was drowned out again.

O’Malley was speaking at Netroots Nation, the country’s largest gathering of progressive activists when the proceedings broke down in a cacophony of boos, cheers and heckles on Saturday. Shortly afterward, Bernie Sanders, another Democratic candidate for president, was also silenced on the same stage by the group of Black Lives Matter protesters. Chanting, the activists shouted out the names of black women who have died in police custody and peppered the candidates with questions about their civil rights records.

A sea of mostly white progressives, including unions, laborers, bloggers, activists and musicians sat watching the drama unfold.

It was a moment that spoke to the tumult on the Democratic left and surprised even the organizers of the nine-year-old annual event. As the Democratic party increasingly coalesces around a progressive wish list like expanding Social Security and reining in Wall Street, the growing Black Lives Matter movement is calling loudly for the left to focus on racial injustice as well.

The two presidential candidates found themselves at the center of the chaos, both caught off guard and unable to answer the protesters.









Understandably, the Democratic contenders (with O'Malley, above) were caught off guard. Frizell continues

“Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter,” O’Malley said to boos and jeers.

After O’Malley exited, Sanders took the stage and flashed with annoyance. “If you don’t want me to be here that’s okay,” he said. “I don’t want to out-scream you.”

(All lives matter.... a racist, warmongering thought, if there ever were one.)

There are three major Democratic candidates. (Sorry, Lincoln and Jim.)  "Sanders," Time's Frizell notes, "has proposed a massive jobs programs and raising the minimum wage, and O'Malley has discussed reforming policing and enhancing civilian review boards, among other measures."  Even Wall Street's favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton, "who was absent from the Phoenix conference- has called for automatic voter registration and fundamentally reforming the criminal justice system."

All three individuals have spoken in favor of reforming the criminal justice system, the need which inspired the "Black Lives Matter movement." Automatic voter registration would go a long way to blunting the GOP's voter suppression movement aimed at, more than anything else, keeping blacks and Hispanics from voting.

Still, they shouted and prevented their political allies from fully presenting their case. Primary fault lies with organizers of the event, who should have anticipated this at least as a possibility and provided security accordingly.  Alternatively, Sanders and O'Malley could have spoken up, thereby ending their campaigns, given that the news media would in showing Democratic discord while from other quarters charges of racism were leveled. (Honestly- you know that's true, don't you?)

Republican audiences know how to end this sort of rudeness. Chants of "USA! USA!" are hokey, obnoxious, superficial, and disingenuous.  (This is the Party which tried to force the USA into bankruptcy by refusing to raise the debt limit.)  But they are effective- and because they are effective, the mainstream media has no trouble with them. They also imply a unity within the GOP, which is another way to impress the Fourth Estate. (Do you remember the incident recorded below? Neither do I. That's the point.)









So of course these folks didn't approach any gathering of the Repub Party, the organization inimical to their interests and which would do almost anything to keep them from even voting. They sensed weakness and went after the Democratic Party. It would be in their (selfish and/or misguided) to continue this behavior until it is effectively confronted. The Democratic Party had better figure out to do it, or the American people, who are not partial to weakness, will put the Democratic Party out of its misery. Otherwise, notwithstanding the declining concentration of whites in the electorate, expect defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.





Share |

Kristol Certainly Knows A 'Crazy' When He Sees One

The reviews have come in on Donald Trump's statement that John McCain is "a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured.

The responses have not been positive. John Ellis Bush termed Trump's remarks "slanderous attacks." Scott Walker called McCain "undoubtedly an American hero" and argued Trump "needs to apologize to Senator McCain" for this "disgrace." Marco Rubio asserted "America's POW's deserve much better to have their service questioned by the offensive rantings of Donald Trump."

Rick Perry claimed Trump has shown himself "unfit" to be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces," as if there ever were reason to believe he was fit.  However, the most clever (though probably not prescient) remark came from Mitt Romney, who declared "the difference" between McCain and his critic is "Trump shot himself down."

In a sense, though, the most interesting remark was made by Bill Kristol, who stated on ABC's "This Week"

So I'm finished with Donald Trump. And I don’t think it's going to -- he'll -- and I don't think -- I don't think he'll stay up in the polls, incidentally. Republican primary voters are pro-respect the military. And he showed disrespect for the military.

He showed a lack of respect for war heroes (not for "the military") but, as John Kerry discovered and Jake Tapper pointed out (video below), the GOP's respect for the men and women in uniform is selective.  We will find, also (though it will not be acknowledged) that support for Trump does not plunge because he slammed a guy for having failed to succeed. McCain's service was heroic; but he was captured, and that's a far cry from Republican idolization of the "winners" in society. "I don't like losers" Trump said, but that really captures the ethos of his entire Party.










Evidently, Kristol's recognition that showing a lack of respect for war heroes is offensive does not extend to showing a lack of recognition for other people.    It's not only labeling the individuals cheering Trump on for his anti-immigration remarks as "crazies," even if many are, well, fanatics.

Kristol played a prominent role in the 2008 presidential campaign, for he and two other National Review heavyweights (with some family members) took a cruise to the governor's mansion in Juneau. After a pleasant visit to the state's chief executive

The most ardent promoter, however, was Kristol, and his enthusiasm became the talk of Alaska’s political circles. According to Simpson, Senator Stevens told her that “Kristol was really pushing Palin” in Washington before McCain picked her. Indeed, as early as June 29th, two months before McCain chose her, Kristol predicted on “Fox News Sunday” that “McCain’s going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket.” He described her as “fantastic,” saying that she could go one-on-one against Obama in basketball, and possibly siphon off Hillary Clinton’s supporters. He pointed out that she was a “mother of five” and a reformer. “Go for the gold here with Sarah Palin,” he said. The moderator, Chris Wallace, finally had to ask Kristol, “Can we please get off Sarah Palin?"

The next day, however, Kristol was still talking about Palin on Fox. “She could be both an effective Vice-Presidential candidate and an effective President,” he said. “She’s young, energetic.” On a subsequent “Fox News Sunday,” Kristol again pushed Palin when asked whom McCain should pick: “Sarah Palin, whom I’ve only met once but I was awfully impressed by—a genuine reformer, defeated the establishment up there. It would be pretty wild to pick a young female Alaska governor, and I think, you know, McCain might as well go for it.” On July 22nd, again on Fox, Kristol referred to Palin as “my heartthrob.” He declared, “I don’t know if I can make it through the next three months without her on the ticket.” Reached last week, Kristol pointed out that just before McCain picked Palin he had ratcheted back his campaign a little; though he continued to tout her, he also wrote a Times column promoting Senator Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut.

On Sunday, Kristol contended Trump "jumped the shark yesterday."   But when a great war hero and veteran United States Senator- in part due to Kristol's prodding- selects Sarah Palin (!) to be a heartbeat from the presidency (cartoon below by M. Wuerker of Politico), that could not possibly be jumping any fish..

Donald Trump was very rude. But so was Barack Obama. He did not, after the election of 2008, bother to send a thank-you note to William Kristol.

Share |

Lay Up

Time reports

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren drew a red line on Friday for 2016 presidential candidates, calling for them to commit to end the so-called “revolving door” between Wall Street and the Cabinet.

The firebrand populist said specifically that all the presidential candidates should support Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s bill introduced this week that would prohibit bonuses for Wall Street executives who take government jobs.

“Anyone who wants to be President should appoint only people who have already demonstrated they are independent, who have already demonstrated that they can hold giant banks accountable,” said Warren, speaking in Phoenix at Netroots Nation, a convention of liberal activists.

While the call to action was aimed at everyone running in 2016, its clearest target was Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who is courting the very types of progressive activists in the audience in both the primary and general election.

Baldwin, who in January 2013 became the first openly gay individual to serve in the U.S. Senate, herself may be carving out a significant role addressing the vast inequities of wealth in the nation.

Last year she sponsored a bill which according to a press release "would force the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates oil markets, to use all of its authority, including its emergency powers, to eliminate excessive oil speculation." It is co-sponsored by Senators Levin of Michigan, Nelson of Florida, Cardin of Maryland, Franken of Minnesota, Bluemnthal of Connecticut, Brown of Ohio, Shaheen of New Hampshire, Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Merkley of Oregon, Markey of Massachusetts, Hirono of Hawaii, and in an upset, Klobuchar of Minnesota and McCaskill of Missouri.

A press release from June reveals that she recently has introduced a bill which "would end the carried interest loophole and ensure that other people's money is taxed at the same ordinary income tax rates as that of the vast majority of Americans."   It is co-sponsored by Senators Franken of Minnesota, Whitehouse and Reed of Rhode Island, Hirono of Hawaii, Manchin of West Virginia, Sanders of Vermont, Blumenthal,  and of course, Warren.

And as Senator Warren described (video below; segment beginning at approximately 25:20) at Netroots Nation, Senator Baldwin now has introduced the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act, which would "help ensure that conflicts of interest do not erode the effectiveness of financial regulators."  The details  are here but among other things it would "prohibit government employees from accepting bonuses from their former private sector employers for entering government service" and would "require senior financial service regulators to recuse themselves from any official actions that directly or substantially benefit the former employers or clients for whom they worked in the previous two years before joining federal service. " It is co-sponsored b Senators Schatz of Hawaii, Cummings of Maryland and of course, Warren.








While Senator Warren did not refer to any member of Congress other than Baldwin, she was (as Time suggested) clearly sending a message to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton.  Clinton's endorsement of the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act would not only help allay concerns among the activist left, but also be of some comfort to the Massachusetts senator, who otherwise could prove to be a major thorn in the side of the former Secretary of State.

Mrs. Clinton likes to speak of bipartisanship, as her 2008 rival also did, until he became persuaded of the futility of reaching compromise with an adversary that views such an effort only as weakness.  So Clinton's endorsement of this latest, valiant effort by Baldwin may carry particular significance. Warren says it "would throw some heavy sand into the gears of the revolving door. And it's a bill that a presidential candidate should be able to cheer for."T

There is a total of 17 Senators who have signed off on one or more of these progressive pieces of legislation.   It will not surprise you that none is a Republican, that all are Democrats. It should be an easy call for Hillary Clinton.







Share |

Quick Thinking

"In some recent remarks," Politico's Michael Crowley wrote Tuesday evening

Clinton has also hinted at a tougher view than the one that prevailed in Vienna, including her belief that Iran’s “breakout” period — the time it would take to enrich enough uranium for a bomb — should be longer than one year. Tuesday’s agreement imposes a breakout time of only one year.

Sixteen months ago, the Jerusalem Post had reported

While touting her role in wrestling Iran’s leaders to a point of weakness – the election of President Hassan Rouhani in 2013 reflected this success, she asserted — Clinton nevertheless expressed caution that a comprehensive deal could be clinched in Vienna that would end the crisis.

“I personally am skeptical that the Iranians will follow through and deliver,” Clinton said. “The progress of Iran’s nuclear program may be halted, but it is not dismantled.”

“If they choose to walk through an open door to a different future, we must be prepared to respond in kind,” she continued, “just as we must be prepared with firm resolve to refuse. The next months will be telling.”

The former Secretary of State was addressing a gathering of the American Jewish Committee, a group passionately devoted to the interests of Israel, including its continued existence as a Jewish state.  That also is the nation whose Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told the US Congress in March that the impending deal would be "a bad deal- a very bad deal" and who promptly after the agreement was announced termed it "a historic mistake."

Campaigning only ten days earlier, on Independence Day, Mrs. Clinton warned Iran remains "an existential threat" to Israel and asserted "even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran." Yet fewer than four hours after the President's statement, Mrs. Clinton- reputedly an ardent supporter of Israel- emerged from a meeting with congressional Democrats and publicly vowed support for the pact (video below).

In private, it appears, she was even more definitive.   "She was not equivocal in her support for the agreement as she understands it," Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia stated. The Hill noted "One House Democrat who spoke anonymously in order to discuss the private conversation, suggested Clinton's message to the Democrats carried stronger tones of support than her cautious public remarks."

That's not a flip-flop but awfully close to one for an individual who proclaimed her support for a 100+ page nuclear pact within four hours of hearing it had been negotiated.  A classic case of speed reading, it was eerily appropriate for an individual who believes there is no need for the American public to be informed of the details in, say, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Clinton's instant enthusiasm for an Iran deal she is unlikely to have studied closely in a matter of a couple of hours may derive from wise political calculation.  Certainly, the Democratic base will support the deal; it was negotiated by the Obama Administration.   However, her stance likely goes deeper than that.

A little over two weeks ago, Ed Kilgore considered the outside possibility that Bernie Sanders will emerge as the Democratic presidential nominee. He noted that the Vermont Senator could upset Clinton in Iowa and/or New Hamsphire but

the complexion of Democratic primary voters after NH gets a whole lot less lily-white, and Sanders has no demonstrated appeal to minority voters, while HRC has quite a bit (the belief that minority voters are more ideologically left-bent than other Democrats is one of the great illusions of progressive politics, dashed again and again).  For one thing, you can be certain the current occupant of the White House, who has a pretty strong minority following, isn't going to stand by idly as Bernie Sanders moves toward the nomination.

There is no contract signed by President Obama and Hillary Clinton. However, it's likely there is an understanding, if not something stronger, between the two of them.  If Clinton's support in the black community slips, an endorsement from Barack Obama probably would be enough to staunch the bleeding.

It's not as though President Obama hasn't undermined the progressive community in several instances during his presidency, even as pertains to elections.  In 2013, New Jersey Democratic State Senator Barbara Buono had the temerity to run against incumbent governor Chris Christie in a state which had voted overwhelmingly twice for Barack Obama. Obama remained mum and relatively uninvolved. Nonetheless, he was photographed on two occasions with the right-wing governor, all the better for Christie to establish the bipartisan bona fides needed to increase his victory margin and his credibility with GOP elites looking to elect a president in 2016.

That's how President Obama rolls.  His promotion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and fast track should remind us that he frequently has taken the progressive wing of the party for granted, confident that the left never will abandon a president who has continually endured vicious attacks from the right. Some of the more extreme and intemperate complaints have had the scent of racial bias, which early in his presidency cemented Obama's support with the left.

The Iran deal may be a good one.  Nevertheless, it is unlikely Hillary Clinton knew that when she instantly endorsed the deal and even lobbied for it among Democratic legislators.  If, as probable, she has an arrangement with President Obama, it is a cynical move contemptuous of the Democratic base. But then, these are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton we're talking about.











Share |

False Witness

The New York Times Jackie Calmes reports

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has been aggressively seeking Christian conservatives’ support in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, asked the state’s health department to investigate Planned Parenthood and “this alleged evil and illegal activity.” He also petitioned the F.B.I. to assist, given the “alleged criminal activity.”

Another Republican candidate, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, in a statement called the video “a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life,” and said it was vindication for his signing of legislation to defund Planned Parenthood in Texas.

His successor, Greg Abbott, who is also a Republican, later wrote on Twitter that “Texas will look into these organ harvesting claims.”

Messrs. Jindal, Perry, and Abbot may want to recall the Ninth Commandment when considering this

release of a video that surreptitiously captured an official from the group explaining how it provides fetal parts to medical researchers.

The video, from a little-known activist group called the Center for Medical Progress, appeared to have been shot in a California restaurant in July 2014. It shows a doctor from Planned Parenthood, over a lunch with red wine, answering questions from two people off-camera posing as potential purchasers of tissue from aborted fetuses. The doctor discusses with them, sometimes flippantly, the body parts most in demand.

While the video, which was circulated on the Internet, alleges that Planned Parenthood is guilty of the crime of selling fetal remains, the official tells her questioners more than once that the cost, $30 to $100, is reimbursement for clinics’ expenses.

Transferring fetal tissue is clearly legal if it does not profit the seller. A disappointed communications specialist for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention examines relevant law and concedes

Tissue donated after an abortion for research purposes appears to be completely legal under federal law (and) tissue and organs from aborted fetuses may be used for therapeutic purposes provided the material was freely donated by women following their decision to terminate (because of 42 U.S. Code 289g it is illegal for a clinic to ask for approval prior to the abortion).

Clearly, nothing Planned Parenthood did was illegal; almost as clearly, nothing was unethical. Nonetheless, Cecile Richards has honorably, though (strategically) foolishly, apologized (video below) for the "staff member's tone and statements." (Anti-choice activists will not be so gracious.)









As Media Matters explains, the video making the rounds is a bit under 90 minutes, while the entire video (eventually released) shot by the Center for Medical Progress is at least two-and-a-half hours.  Only in that is Dr. Deborah Nucatella, Planned Parenthood's Staff Director for Medical Services, seen emphasizing "No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything that's not like, reasonable and customary. This is not- nobody should be "selling" tissue. That's just not the goal here."

Representatives of The Center for Medical Progress posed as a fetal tissue procurement company. The Center is peddling an aborted and heavily edited short video claiming Planned Parenthood is "selling aborted baby parts."   However, federal law "prohibits the purchase of human organs, including any organs derived from a fetus, for the purposes of human transplantation. Because the fetal tissue is likely to be used for research purposes rather than be transplanted into a living human, this law most likely does not apply."

The Ninth Commandment warns "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," which

calls for sanctity of truth in all area of life, even though the vocabulary primarily reflects the legal process in Israel....

Included in the command is a call to abstain from all lying, deceit,slander, gossip, backbiting, vilification, rash depiction of one's neighbors, and the like.  Instead, one must love the truth....

The commission of the Southern Baptist Convention believes Planned Parenthood's practice is "shockingly legal."  But The Center for Medical Progress- whose website itself brazenly bears false witness- impersonates a human biologics company, secretly tapes a doctor, promotes distribution of a deceptive video, and claims that Planned Parenthood is acting illegally.  It disparages the Ninth Commandment, and the likes of Jindall, Perry, Abbot, Senator Chuck Grassley, and Speaker John Boehner happily join the crusade.






Share |