Pennsylvania judge strikes down voter ID law

JURIST

Judge Bernard McGinley of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court [official website] on Friday struck down [opinion, PDF] the state's nearly two-year-old voter identification law, considered one of the most strict in the nation. In his opinion, MicGinley wrote that the state had failed to adequately explain [AP report] why the law was a necessary measure: "Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal." The law was determined to place an unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote. Enforcement of the law has been blocked pending final resolution of the case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Critics of the law have denounced it as a cynical tool of voter suppression, while its supporters claim that such laws are necessary to safeguard against voter fraud though it has been acknowledged that there are no known cases of voter impersonation within the state. Those challenging the law demonstrated at trial the difficult administrative process necessary to obtain a voter ID card and the problems in processing and distributing them, leading to a failure of many potential voters to receive their ID cards prior to elections.

More Promises from Obama

TheDailyBeast

Last Thursday President Obama laid out his new initiative for reducing poverty and creating jobs by focusing on specific economic “Promise Zones.” The first five high-poverty areas that will receive attention are San Antonio, Texas; Southeastern Kentucky; Philadelphia; Los Angeles; and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The plan aims to ensure more high school graduations, provide tax incentives for economic growth and bring mixed-income housing to these areas.

$6.3M settlement for Black man in prison 25 years for rape he didn’t commit

SunTimes and [MORE]

A man who spent 25 years behind bars for a rape he did not commit is the latest wrongfully convicted ex-prisoner to collect a multimillion settlement from the City of Chicago.

The City Council Finance Committee authorized $6,375,000 to settle a federal lawsuit filed by Larry Gillard, alleging the police crime lab distorted evidence in his case.

Gillard, now in his 50s, was convicted of a May 1981 rape after he was identified by the victim in a photo lineup and after a crime lab analyst testified that he was among only 4.4 percent of the African-American population that could have provided the semen recovered.

A jury took less than an hour to convict him, and he was sentenced to 24 years.

A later audit of the city crime lab found it did not comply with standards, and it was shut down and its work was turned over to the State Police.

After Gillard spent decades in prison, the Exoneration Project at the University of Chicago Law School took up the case. State Police DNA tests in 2009 definitively excluded Gillard and he was granted a certificate of innocence.

How far the police can go in lying to [mostly black] suspects during interrogations? Court Weighs Police Role in Coercing Confessions

NYTimes

New York State’s highest court heard arguments in two murder cases on Tuesday that plumbed the question of how far the police can go in lying to suspects during interrogations — even to the point of telling suspects a dead victim is still alive, but might survive if they confess to precise details of the crime.

The question being considered by the Court of Appeals focused on when a police officer’s lies in an interview room cross a line and become coercion. It is a question that has gained attention in legal circles recently, as more false convictions based on coerced confessions have come to light in high-profile cases like the Central Park Five.

“What is acceptable pressure?” Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman asked Kelly L. Egan, a lawyer representing the Rensselaer County district attorney’s office. “What’s O.K. and what’s not O.K. in terms of deception?”

New York State’s highest court heard arguments in two murder cases on Tuesday that plumbed the question of how far the police can go in lying to suspects during interrogations — even to the point of telling suspects a dead victim is still alive, but might survive if they confess to precise details of the crime.

The question being considered by the Court of Appeals focused on when a police officer’s lies in an interview room cross a line and become coercion. It is a question that has gained attention in legal circles recently, as more false convictions based on coerced confessions have come to light in high-profile cases like the Central Park Five.

“What is acceptable pressure?” Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman asked Kelly L. Egan, a lawyer representing the Rensselaer County district attorney’s office. “What’s O.K. and what’s not O.K. in terms of deception?”

Mr. Lippman was asking about the case of Adrian Thomas, who was convicted in 2009 of murdering his infant son on the strength of a confession he made after detectives in Troy, N.Y., lied to him repeatedly during a long interrogation. Found listless in his crib, the boy, Matthew, was taken a hospital with pneumonia and a severe infection. Doctors also found evidence on X-rays of severe head trauma and told the police of their findings.

Among other things, the Troy detectives told Mr. Thomas repeatedly that the baby’s condition was an accident and that he would not be arrested. Several times they threatened to arrest his wife if he did not confess to abusing the baby, prompting him to say he would “take the rap.” Later they told him his son, who was already brain-dead, might die if he did not help doctors by describing how he hurt the boy.

After two days, Mr. Thomas admitted he had thrown the infant down onto a bed forcefully three times and had hit the baby’s head accidentally against his crib. The boy would soon be declared dead. Convicted at trial of depraved indifference murder, Mr. Thomas is now serving a 25-year-to-life term in prison.

The police in New Rochelle, N.Y., used similar tactics to lure Paul Aveni into making a statement that led to his conviction for criminally negligent homicide in the 2009 death of his girlfriend, Angela Camillo. Though Ms. Camillo had already died of a drug overdose, a detective told Mr. Aveni that doctors were trying to revive her and needed to know what drugs she had taken to keep her alive. Mr. Aveni immediately admitted he had injected her with heroin and had given her Xanax.

An appellate court in Albany upheld Mr. Thomas’s conviction, ruling the tactics the Troy police had employed “were not of the character as to induce a false confession.”

But an appeals panel in Brooklyn reversed Mr. Aveni’s conviction and threw out his statements: The police had implicitly threatened him that “his silence would lead to Camillo’s death, and then he could be charged with her homicide.”

During arguments, several judges — among them Judge Lippman, Robert S. Smith and Eugene F. Pigott — expressed sympathy for Mr. Thomas’s contention that his confession was made under unfair pressure.

But the judges also grilled Mr. Thomas’s lawyer, Jerome K. Frost, over where they should draw the line: The court has ruled in past cases that a police officer may deceive suspects, but only if the final confession is voluntary and the officer’s lies do not create a risk the suspect will also lie about what he did.

“We have precedent that says the police can use deception,” Judge Victoria A. Graffeo said. “What we are trying to figure out is when you enter this area of inappropriate pressure?”

Despite a Guilty Plea, a Ruling Allows Black Man to Sue New York City

NYTimes

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a man whose 1998 conviction for the attempted murder and attempted robbery of a Bronx livery cab driver was reversed but who later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge could still sue the city for violating his rights.

The plaintiff, Michael Poventud, 43, who had said he was innocent, served nine years in prison before his conviction was vacated in 2005 on grounds that the authorities had not disclosed evidence to his lawyers that could have helped his defense.

Rather than undergo a retrial, he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree and acknowledged that he had been armed and present at the scene of the crime. He was given a one-year sentence and was immediately released from prison.

But a judge dismissed a lawsuit he filed on grounds it was legally prohibited because of his guilty plea.

On Thursday, in a ruling that revealed heated debate among judges and touched on philosophical questions about the search for truth in the justice system, the appeals court held that Mr. Poventud’s plea did not preclude him from seeking damages from those he accused of violating his right to a fair trial.

“Poventud’s claims are not the stuff of prison idleness or self-absorption,” Judge Richard C. Wesley of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote, adding that Mr. Poventud had succeeded in having his conviction overturned because of “a constitutional infirmity.”

The appeals court, which usually rules through three-judge panels, ruled 2 to 1 in April in favor of Mr. Poventud. In a rare step, the full, or “en banc,” court then took up the matter, with 15 judges participating in the ruling on Thursday.

Judge Wesley wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by eight other judges. A 10th concurred and dissented in part. Five other judges dissented. Six opinions were issued.

“They’re all wresting with the challenges of a system that doesn’t always know the truth and where trials aren’t always fair and huge incentives are offered to plead guilty,” said Daniel C. Richman, a law professor at Columbia University.

African Truth of Israeli Apartheid: Gross Mistreatment in Violation of Int’l Law

4th Media

For more than six decades since its creation in 1948, the Israeli regime has hidden its crimes against native Arab people with the façade of “national security”.

The Israeli usurpers have systematically stolen land from the native Palestinians, killed them, brutalized them, and pushed millions into exile or into squalid ghettos.

Yet when charged with these blatant crimes against humanity, the Israeli regime defends its racist genocidal conduct in terms of security against “Arab terrorism”. It has gotten away with this despicable charade and affront to international law and morality in large measure because of the cynical indulgence of its patron in Washington.

American presidents repeat the mantra of “Israel’s right to security” – even as that regime shoots down Palestinian children, as it did again this week, and launches air strikes on family homes, schools and hospitals.

Nevertheless, this outrageous distortion is now being laid bare from a surprising quarter, as impoverishing African refugees residing in Israel rise up to expose its barbaric policies. And the Israeli regime is dealing with this mounting African refugee problem in the only way that it knows how – through ruthless racist repression.

Tens of thousands of Africans who fled to Israel for political asylum in recent years have this week taken to the streets of Tel Aviv to protest at the inhumane conditions being imposed on them.

In the past five years, Israel has seen a wave of refugees from Africa. Most of them have entered by crossing the Egyptian border, often after enduring hazardous journeys and running the gauntlet of smugglers and armed gangs.

There is estimated to be some 60,000 Africans – mainly from Sudan and Eritrea – seeking asylum in Israel. Officially, Israel is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees and is therefore legally obligated to offer asylum to these people. [MORE]

"It Was Time to Do More Than Protest": Activists Admit to 1971 FBI Burglary That Exposed COINTELPRO

DemocracyNow and NYTimes

One of the great mysteries of the Vietnam War era has been solved. On March 8, 1971, a group of activists — including a cabdriver, a day care director and two professors — broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania. They stole every document they found and then leaked many to the press, including details about FBI abuses and the then-secret counter-intelligence program to infiltrate, monitor and disrupt social and political movements, nicknamed COINTELPRO. They called themselves the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI. No one was ever caught for the break-in. The burglars’ identities remained a secret until this week when they finally came forward to take credit for the caper that changed history. Today we are joined by three of them — John Raines, Bonnie Raines and Keith Forsyth; their attorney, David Kairys; and Betty Medsger, the former Washington Post reporter who first broke the story of the stolen FBI documents in 1971 and has now revealed the burglars’ identities in her new book, "The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI."

Click here to watch the one-hour Part 2 of this interview.

Worldwide, Richest 3% Hold One-Fifth of Collective Income

Gallup

Across 131 countries worldwide, the richest 3% of residents hold 20% of the total collective household income -- as do the poorest 54%. In other words, the 3% reporting the highest household incomes share the same "slice" of collective income across countries that more than half of residents worldwide -- those on the lower end of the income scale -- must share. Income inequality levels are highest in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (predominantly China).

Former New York City Cops Held Over 9/11 Fraud

CitizensforLegitGov

Former New York police officers and firefighters, who falsely claimed they were disabled as a result of the September 11 attacks, have been arrested in a sweeping fraud investigation. They are among more than 100 people charged over the "massive" Social Security fraud worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Of the 106 charged in the scam, 80 were retired New York police officers or firefighters.

This Time Zimmerman Points his Gun at a White Woman's Face. Same Result? (part2)

ColorLines 

LA Sheriff Baca Resigns Amid Explosive Scandals

ColorLines

Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca announced his resignation at a press conference Tuesday. He stated he will not seek reelection in November, and that he will step down from his post at the end of January. The sheriff gave what he called some "personal and private" reasons, but will mostly be stepping down because of a "negative perception this upcoming campaign has brought on" his department. Baca appeared to be fighting tears during his initial announcement. 

Baca leaves the department amid during a time of widespread controversy in a massive jail system. Baca's department has helped detain and deport a record number of immigrants--the majority of whom were not accused of any violent crime. The sheriff's department was also the target of a federal investigation. Grand jury indictments resulting from that investigation reveal serious abuse at L.A.'s Men's Central Jail and the Twin Towers Correctional Facility.

The documents allege not only excessive force and intimidation against inmates and their visitors--including broken bones--but serious corruption as well. Nevertheless, the sheriff states that his is "the safest large jail in the country."

On Monday, Sheriff Baca agreed to an oversight commission, that he stated "would serve to further develop law enforcement skills regarding Constitutional policing, procedural justice, civil rights, and human rights as a whole." That was a big change of course for Baca, who has long said that his department was free of any institutional problems--despite allegations about abuse and corruption for decades from former inmates and their supporters.

Just last month, Baca insisted the 18 grand jury indictments represented some bad apples, but weren't evident of a crisis in his department as a whole. Those statements in support of his deputies were echoed during today's press conference, during which time he also floated possible new candidates for election.

New Polling: Majority of Americans Believe Failure of Economy to Blame for Persistent Poverty

CivilRights.org

Fifty years after President Lyndon B. Johnson launched an “unconditional war on poverty” in his 1964 State of the Union address, most Americans believe that the failure of the economy to work for all keeps 46.5 million Americans in poverty and a third of Americans teetering on its brink.

Ohio new execution method causes suffering: death row inmate

JURIST Attorneys for death row inmate Dennis McGuire on Tuesday filed for a stay of execution in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio [official website], claiming that Ohio's untried execution method would cause McGuire to experience a suffocation-like syndrome known as air hunger. McGuire's execution was scheduled for January 16 after being found guilty [AP report] of the 1989 rape and fatal stabbing of Joy Stewart. A shortage of Ohio's former execution drug, pentobarbital, has forced a switch to midazolam, a sedative, combined with hydromorphone, a painkiller, which, according to McGuire's attorneys, will not properly sedate him during the execution process, causing agony and terror as he struggles to breathe. A request for clemency was denied by Governor John Kasich [official website] on Tuesday without comment. Federal Judge Gregory Frost scheduled a Friday court date to hear arguments regarding the proposed delay.

In November 2011, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor [official profile] opened the first meeting of the state's death panel review committee [JURIST report]. O'Connor announced the formation of the committee [JURIST report] in September, in response to Frost's July ruling, which stayed the executions of two inmates [Columbus Dispatch report]. Frost agreed with their arguments that Ohio executes inmates haphazardly, causing an unofficial death penalty moratorium as the federal courts considered the constitutionality of the state's death penalty procedure. In December 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a challenge [JURIST report] to the lethal injection method of execution and indicated that they would not hear further cases regarding lethal injection until the Ohio General Assembly explicitly expanded state review of death penalty cases. In November 2009, Ohio adopted a single-drug lethal injection protocol [JURIST report], replacing the previously used three-drug method. The single-drug lethal injection method has faced numerous challenges, with one case reaching the US Supreme Court. In March 2010, the Supreme Court refused [JURIST report] to stay the execution of an Ohio inmate challenging the state's single-drug execution protocol. Ohio conducted its first execution [JURIST report] using the new procedure in December 2009. The change in procedure came after the state undertook a review [JURIST report] of its lethal injection practices in September 2009, following the planned execution of inmate Romell Broom failed when a suitable vein for the drugs' administration could not be found.

Hiring New Police will not make schools safer

Sentencing Project

The Obama administration wants to fund the hiring of 1,000 new school resource officers across the country — a priority Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller wants to make sure congressional lawmakers fund in the 2014 federal budget.

But, according to The Facts about Dangers of Added Police in Schools from The Sentencing Project, putting law enforcement officers in schools doesn’t necessarily decrease crime, but it can feed juveniles into the criminal justice system for offenses that educators might deal with using a suspension or expulsion.  

“As well-intentioned as they may be, and as well-trained as they may be to handle crime and violence on the streets, they may not be well-trained to deal with juveniles and students with mental health issues,” said Jeremy Haile, federal advocacy counsel of The Sentencing Project.

In order to reduce violence and promote educational objectives, it is far more effective to provide the nation’s children with the necessary resources to support their emotional, mental, and scholastic development through strong school environments.

Prison Nation

Sentencing Project

An editorial reports that “With 2.2 million people behind bars — a staggering 500 percent increase over the past 30 years — the United States has become the world’s leading jailer. Nearly 5 million more people are on probation or parole. One of every 31 American adults is under the control of the criminal justice system.

“More hopefully, the Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported that the U.S. prison population in 2012 declined slightly, for the third straight year. The nation’s race to incarcerate has finally slowed, but broader sentencing reforms and policy changes are needed to bring prison populations back to rational and sustainable levels.

“At the current rate, it would take 88 years for the U.S. prison population to return to its 1980 level, according to a report from The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group. Economically and socially, the country can’t afford to wait.

“Nearly half of state prison inmates in 2011 were convicted of nonviolent drug, property, or public-order crimes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The nation needs, among other things, sweeping sentencing reforms, shorter but more intense prison stays for many probation and parole violators, and opportunities for parole for the growing number of aging and sick inmates

“Across the country, prison counts rose every year between 1973 and 2010. Those spikes were driven by policy changes — not crime rates — including harsh mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, so-called three-strikes laws, and other get-tough-on-crime measures.

“In recent years, a growing number of activists, policy makers, and politicians — including budget-conscious conservatives and right-leaning libertarians — have questioned the nation’s prison-building boom. Prisons have become big business, costing the nation an estimated $75 billion a year.

“Mass incarceration has severed community social networks, especially in poor neighborhoods, left one in 14 African-American children with a parent in prison, and created lifelong employment barriers for the 95 percent of prisoners who eventually go home.

“Nearly 700,000 people a year leave U.S. prisons, often unprepared for life on the outside.

“The United States appears to be ending an insidious, costly incarceration spree. Right-sizing prison populations in states such as Ohio will take courage and foresight, but the alternative is wasting billions more dollars that would be better spent on education, health care, transportation, and other vital needs.”

Pet Negro Marco Rubio Voted Against Unemployment Benefits Even Though His State Needs Them Most

ThinkProgress

On Wednesday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is marking the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty the day after he rejected extended federal benefits for long-term unemployment, a cushion that has helped keep millions out of poverty. He was one of 37 Republican senators who voted against the bill even though his state that has the most to lose from the expiration of unemployment benefits.

According to a study from Florida International University, Florida already cuts off its unemployment benefits at an earlier stage than most states. Starting January, Florida residents out of work will only receive state benefits for up to 16 weeks. Before that change, it was already one of only six states to cut off benefits before 26 weeks of unemployment. Federal dollars had kicked in once states cut off benefits, which meant Florida residents could receive up to 39 weeks. Florida’s maximum benefit is also lower than other states, at $275 a week.

Meanwhile, Florida’s workers were out of work for an average of 44 weeks in 2011 and 2012, the longest period in the nation. Incomplete data from last year point to an even longer duration in 2013. The Sun-Sentinel reported the expiration caused 73,000 unemployed Floridians to lose their benefits immediately. And if they are not extended soon, another 260,400 in Florida will be hurt.

Rubio is not the only senator to hail from a state disproportionately impacted by the unemployment debate. Many of the Republicans who voted against bill happen to represent states with the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL), Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker (R-TN) all voted no despite representing states with unemployment over 8 percent.

Thanks to six Republicans joining Democratic senators to advance the extension, it will still move on to the next vote, without Rubio’s help.

White Party Governor’s Attempt To Find Massive Welfare Fraud Turns Up Next To Nothing

ThinkProgress

On Tuesday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) released data on purchases made with state welfare benefits that he claimed exposed abuse, but they only add up to less than a percent of all benefit transactions.

The data show that there were more than 3,000 transactions at bars, sports bars, and strip clubs made with EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards loaded with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or welfare) and food stamp benefits between January 1, 2011 and November 15, 2013. The state doesn’t track what was actually purchased, and some transactions can be withdrawals from ATMs at those locations. Given that there are about 50,000 of these transactions every month, or nearly 1.8 million in that time frame, as the state’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) spokesman told the Bangor Daily News, they only make up “about two-tenths of 1 percent of total purchases and ATM withdrawals,” the paper calculates.

LePage still expressed outrage at this tiny fraction of purchases. “This information is eye-opening and indicates a larger problem than initially thought,” he wrote when the data was released. “These benefits are supposed to help families, children and our most vulnerable Mainers. Instead, we have discovered welfare benefits are paying for alcohol, cigarettes and other things that hardworking taxpayers should not be footing the bill for.” When the Bangor Daily News asked his spokeswoman about the small number of transactions, she responded, “Any amount of abuse in the system that takes away from the truly needy needs to be dealt with,” adding, “We’re not uncovering anything new. There are always going to be bad actors out there. We’re simply saying, ‘We’ve got an eye on you.’”

His spokeswoman also said that he will sponsor a bill to address issues with welfare benefits during this year’s session, including the fact that the state doesn’t track what recipients buy.

If LePage is seeking to paint welfare recipients as wasteful spenders who blow their money on alcohol and cigarettes, the data are not on his side. Nationally, those who receive public benefits such as welfare cash assistance, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, and others spend a bigger portion of their budgets on basics like food, housing, and transportation than those who aren’t enrolled in these programs. They also spend less on eating out and entertainment. Overall, families who rely on government programs spend less than half of what families who don’t rely on them spend.

LePage has made other controversial statements and decisions when it comes to the poor or less fortunate residents of his state. He claimed that 47 percent of Mainers don’t work, despite the fact that 65 percent are working or actively seeking a job while the remaining percentage is mostly made up of retirees, the disabled, students, and homemakers. He exhorted all able-bodied residents to “get off the couch and get yourself a job” in 2012 despite high unemployment rates and few job openings. After he pushed for a five-year cap on welfare benefits, more than 1,500 families with an estimated 2,700 children lost the assistance. Even his plan to simply relocate the state’s DHHS office was controversial, as he wants to move it from downtown Portland to a location in South Portland that is difficult to reach and could restrict the poor’s access to social services.

White Party's (republicans) Mockery Of Unemployment Proves Necessity Of GOP Memo On Compassion

MediaMatters

House GOP leaders reportedly distributed a memo instructing members on how to demonstrate compassion when discussing unemployment. And even as news of the memo leaked, conservative media were demeaning unemployed Americans as "lazy" and calling "hunger" a superior policy to jobless benefits. 

Obama Administration Pushes Extension Of Emergency Unemployment Benefits

Obama Urges Congress To Extend Emergency Unemployment Benefits. In a January 7 speech, President Obama urged members of Congress to extend recently-expired emergency unemployment benefits to those who lost their jobs in the recession, refuting the claim that extending benefits will "somehow hurt the unemployed because it saps their motivation to get a new job." [The Los Angeles Times, 1/7/14]

House Republican Leaders Urge Republicans To Show Compassion For Unemployed 

Washington Post: House GOP Leaders Sent Memo Coaching Republicans To "Show Compassion For The Unemployed." On January 7, The Washington Post obtained a memo from House GOP leaders coaching members on how to discuss unemployment in light of the proposed extension of unemployment benefits:

House Republican leaders sent a memo this week to the entire GOP conference with talking points designed to help rank-and-file Republicans show compassion for the unemployed and explain the Republican position on unemployment benefits. In the memo, which was obtained by The Washington Post, House Republicans are urged to be empathetic toward the unemployed and understand how unemployment is a "personal crisis" for individuals and families. The memo also asks Republicans to reiterate that the House will give "proper consideration" to an extension of long-term insurance as long as Democrats are willing to support spending or regulatory reforms. [The Washington Post, 1/7/14]

Meanwhile, Right-Wing Media Continue To Smear Unemployment Insurance And The Unemployed

Fox's Payne: "I Don't Know Why You Think Helping Someone, People Who Were Born And Dying On Food Stamps" Is Admirable. On the January 7 edition of Hannity, Fox contributor Charles Payne attacked the proposal to extend unemployment benefits, saying "I don't know why you think helping someone, people who were born and dying on food stamps, why you think that's admirable." He concluded, "A lot of people are lazy and a lot of people are becoming lazier. And we're not doing people a favor, by the way, by letting their job skills erode." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/7/14]

Fox's MacCallum Wonders If Being "Compassionate And Understanding To People In Need And Giving Them Things Is The Way To Improve Poverty In This Country." During a discussion on the 50^th anniversary of the War on Poverty and the president's efforts to extend unemployment insurance, America's Newsroom co-host Martha MacCallum questioned the efficacy of anti-poverty programs, saying, "It's a huge issue in this country, whether or not being, what the president would call, I believe, compassionate and understanding to people in need and giving them things is the way to improve poverty in this country." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/8/14]

Fox's Kilmeade: Obama Standing With Unemployed Americans During Speech Is "Class Warfare." During an interview with guest Ann Coulter, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade attacked the president's "little speech" on unemployment insurance, saying, "Let's talk about what's happening with the president's little speech yesterday. About twelve o'clock, he was 20 minutes late. Comes out with all -- a bunch of unemployed people behind him who need long-term benefits. It's class warfare all over again." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/8/14]

Rush Limbaugh: "What Is Unemployment Insurance? It Is Paying People Not To Work." On the January 7 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh characterized unemployment insurance as "paying people not to work," suggesting that unemployed Americans do nothing to find jobs while receiving benefits. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/7/14]

Laura Ingraham: Hunger Is The Best Unemployment Policy. On the January 6 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, radio host and Fox regular Ingraham argued that the nation's unemployment policy should mirror one of her mother's sayings, "when you're hungry, you'll figure out a way to eat," because "hunger brings drive. Hunger for opportunity, hunger for a paycheck, hunger for actual food, hunger for a lifestyle." Ingraham added that the unemployed would be more likely to find a job without "an unending safety net." [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 1/6/14]

Fox Contributor Steve Moore: Unemployment Insurance Is "Like A Paid Vacation For People." On the January 8 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, Fox contributor Steve Moore smeared unemployment benefits as "a paid vacation for people." [Fox News, America's News HQ, 1/8/14] 

White Man on Fox News: The Minimum Wage Is Just The "Black Teenage Unemployment Act" - it should be lowered for them

MediaMatters

Art Laffer argued for the abolishment of the minimum wage for some workers, describing the law as the "black teenage unemployment act." He added that the federal requirement "makes no sense whatsoever."

Laffer, the so-called father of trickle-down economics, appeared on the January 8 edition of Fox News' Happening Now to discuss the possible extension of recently-expired unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. When host Jenna Lee asked Laffer and American Enterprise Institute's Michael Strain about other ways to improve the economy, Laffer recommended doing away with the minimum wage for some workers, saying that "honestly" the requirement is the "black teenage unemployment act." Strain agreed, and suggested lowering the minimum wage "for the long-term unemployed" to $4 an hour.

JENNA LEE: One of the things you both agree on is maybe looking at minimum wage, and Art, you have an idea for minimum wage that you think could encourage hiring and it involves state government so what is that plan?

LAFFER: Yeah, well the minimum wage makes no sense whatsoever to me. I mean, honestly, it's just the teenage -- black teenage unemployment act and this is the very groups that we need to have jobs not be put out of work because of the minimum wage so I'm really very much in favor of at least for teenagers getting rid of the minimum wage so we can bring them back into the labor force, get them the skills they need to continue being productive members of our society for years and years. I mean, that's the way I'd go on minimum wage.

[...]

STRAIN: I certainly agree with Art that we should lower the minimum wage for teenagers, I also think we should lower the minimum wage for the long-term unemployed. You know, right now, if you're a worker and you apply for a job and you've been unemployed for 7 months, the firm may say 'hey, you know, I wonder if there is something about this person maybe previous firms have seen something that I'm not seeing -- I'm not going to hire them.' And the reason that, well a reason that a firm might feel that way is because the government says that you have to take a $7.25 per hour risk on that worker. So if we lower that down to, say, $4 an hour, then the risk is much less to the firm, firms are going to be more likely to hire these workers. Now, I think if we do that, for workers that are heads of households and that are working full time, we don't want them living in poverty, so, if we're going to lower the minimum wage for those workers then we need to have some sort of a wage subsidy or an expansion of the earned income tax credit or something to make up the difference.

LEE: I'm going to need a calculator.

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

Guardian

Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were "never any negotiations" between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.

South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.

The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.