Daily Archives: March 29, 2017

Reporting on the so-called "Freedom Caucus" in the U.S. Congress, BBC journalist Katie Shepherd asked on March 28, "Do these 29 white men run America?" Shepherd was referring to the group of lawmakers who have been credited with (or blamed for) derailing President Donald Trump's effort to repeal and replace Obamacare.

"The Freedom Caucus can make or break a bill," she said.

In an appearance March 29 on MSNBC's Morning Joe programwhich turned testyfour-term Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, doubled down on his opposition to the White House plan, dubbed "Trumpcare."

"Look, the White House gave us a 'take it or leave it' message," Labrador said. "Because I had a binary choice, I chose to leave it."

The conversation got heated after Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski pressed Labrador on another health care matter: The debate over paid family leave.

"I owned a business for 10 years. I paid for the insurance of the people that worked for me," said Labrador. "I gave them leave whenever they needed leave, and I helped them out."

When Brzezinski challenged that Labrador was talking about vacation or sick time, not paid leave, Labrador bristled.

"Look, that's not what I was told we would be talking about," Labrador said. "They had vacation, they had sick days and a bunch of things. Those things cost me money, and I did it willingly. I don't think the government should be forcing that. I know that you want the government to force more spending, but I don't."

Meanwhile, the Idaho Statehouse can expect more of the same arguments in the wake of a March 27 announcement from two freshmen legislators that they'll form an Idaho House Freedom Caucus.

Reps. Mike Kingsley (R-Lewiston) and Bryan Zollinger (R-Idaho Falls) appointed themselves co-chairmen of the group and said they had identified 10 other House members as potential Idaho Freedom Caucus members24 current House members, including Speaker Scott Bedke (R-Oakley), were interested enough in the concept, they packed a March 27 meeting to hear more.

Compared to the "29 white men" in D.C., Zollinger said he looked forward to a "kinder, gentler" Idaho version.

"We aren't going to throw grenades," he said.

In the meantime, Zollinger was anxious to promote a Friday, March 31 GOP fundraiser in eastern Idaho. The event at the Idaho Falls headquarters of the Melaleuca Corporation promises a "shotgun giveaway" and will feature an appearance from Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, who has been agitating for the ouster of U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan based on his support of Trumpcare.

Read more here:

The Freedom to Say No - Boise Weekly

During the past 20 years, eight British universities -- among them Oxford and Cambridge -- have taken more than $292 million from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic governments. These contributions represent the largest source of external funding to UK universities, according to the director of Brunel Universitys Center for Intelligence and Security Studies.

This phenomenon is also not isolated to the United Kingdom: Harvard alone has received more than $30 million from the Saudi government.

Stop and think about this.

Money used to fund professorships, scholarships and centers of study is coming from regimes with long histories of violating religious freedoms. As well-intentioned as the contributors might be, it is clear these contributions are not arriving without strings attached. A cynic might say that they are buying off professors and universities in order to advance their own agenda, even while forbidding similar activities within their own countries. They are happy to exploit Western freedoms in order to strengthen their own theocracies.

Theyre not just doing it via the academy, either.

Saudi Arabia also plays a significant role in the establishment of mosques -- the centerpieces of Muslim communities -- across the world. According to a hearing conducted before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security in 2003, the vast majority of mosques in the United States were then under Saudi influence. In all, it is estimated that Saudi Arabia has spent more than $100 billion to spread the countrys worldview.

Saudis want and enjoy freedoms around the world, but we must ask ourselves: Where is the equal religious freedom offered by the Saudi government toward people of Buddhist, Hindu or Christian faith, or even atheists, in their own country?

Rather, Saudi Arabia remains one of the most oppressive regimes in the world when it comes to freedom of conscience. A recent USCIRF report on the country says Saudi Arabia continues to prosecute, imprison and flog individuals for dissent, apostasy, blasphemy and sorcery. The Kingdom has been designated as a country of particular concern by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Not long ago, I learned about a group of Indian Christians who were arrested in Saudi Arabia during a raid conducted on a private home worship service. While they were all eventually released, the Saudi authorities notified them that their permits for working and living in the country would not be renewed. Once they expire, the Indian Christians have to leave the country.

On the other hand, right now an extremist religious preacher wanted by the Indian government -- who has received massive funding from the U.K. and Saudi Arabia -- enjoys safe haven in Saudi Arabia.

And while cases like these freely happen in Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom is allowed to funnel billions of dollars to countries to promote their brand of Islam --that exportation certainly contributed to the 9/11 attack on New York.

This hypocrisy must end. The free exportation of extremist ideologies -- religious or atheistic -- is what drives people to violence and the curtailment of freedoms.

The international community must adopt a reciprocal approach to religious tolerance in response to those nations that abuse our freedoms while forbidding freedom among their own. It is high time that the West, with its evolved understanding of freedom of conscience and liberty, begins to ask for this kind of reciprocity in bilateral relations with nations.

The Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act, introduced last July to the U.S. Congress, is an example of the type of action that nations may take to protect themselves from the inadvertent importing or exporting of ideology promoting bigotry, intolerance and persecution. The act would forbid a national of any country that limits the free exercise of religion from spending money in the United States to promote a religion. Money is also raised in America and the U.K. among diaspora communities to fund religious extremist groups (not just Islamic groups) in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

More countries need to adopt similar and other measures now that three-quarters of the worlds population lives in a country with high or very high restrictions or hostilities on the freedom of conscience.

Religious tolerance and the freedom of conscience and belief are cornerstones of human rights affecting all other rights. We must hold nations accountable for the safeguarding of these freedoms, and those who restrict them ought not to be able to freely promote their ideology -- in any form -- abroad.

America needs to act and not be focused on economic considerations only.

Most Rev. Dr. Joseph DSouza is the Moderating Bishop of the Good Shepherd Church and Associated Ministries of India. He also serves as the President of the All India Christian Council. He is the recipient of numerous awards and accolades for his work as a human rights activist, and especially on behalf of Indias Dalits (sometimes called untouchables). He is also the founder and International President of the Dalit Freedom Network. He can be reached at: moderator@gsoim.org

View post:

Religious freedom, not money, should drive West in dealing with Saudi Arabia - Fox News

The State

Freedom Caucus blows its chance to govern The State A few days before the House Freedom Caucus brought down the American Health Care Act, N.C. Rep. Mark Meadows laid out the stakes for his group: This is a defining moment for our nation, but it's also a defining moment for the Freedom Caucus. He was ... Republican quits House Freedom CaucusThe Hill Texan Ted Poe quits Freedom Caucus over health care billDallas News (blog) Freedom Caucus member resigns from group over Obamacare riftPolitico Axios -Business Insider Nordic all 391 news articles »

Originally posted here:

Freedom Caucus blows its chance to govern - The State

WASHINGTON Weary from a weeks-long battle over the GOP health care bill, the House Freedom Caucus is regrouping, reassessing, looking at an upcoming spending bill and wondering whether they have another immediate fight in them.

Congress has just over a month before lawmakers have to pass a short-term funding bill to keep the government open, and there are a number of questions conservatives have to answer about that legislation. Will they block any continuing resolution that continues to fund Planned Parenthood? Will they stand strong on spending increases? How much additional money could they swallow, particularly if its not for defense?

An exhausted Mark Meadows, chairman of the roughly three-dozen-member group, emerged Monday night to pump the brakes on any talk of the Freedom Caucus taking a hard stance right now on the so-called continuing resolution to keep government agencies operating.

Everybodys pretty weary right now. I know I am, Meadows (R-N.C.) said. And so I think anytime that youre weary, youve got to be careful about two things: One, making a poor decision, and the other is making a quick decision.

He said the HFC would make a very methodical decision in the days and weeks to come on the continuing resolution (CR)and that Planned Parenthood funding would be one of the things conservatives look at. But he made it clear that he was still thinking about the health care bill.

Ive spent the last 48 hours probably reviewing this and analyzing a whole lot of different situations, Meadows said.

The CR is so far from the Freedom Caucus mind at the moment that when The Huffington Post asked Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) where the caucus was at on including Planned Parenthood funding in the spending bill, his response was, I still think we can get this done, referring to the health care bill.

Were not talking about the CR right now, Labrador said.

Asked whether there was a feeling that the Freedom Caucus maybe needed to let the spending bill go without another fight, Labrador went right back to health care. Were resolute to get this solved.

Tom Williams via Getty Images

But dont mistake the Freedom Caucus continued focus on health care as a sign of weakness. Plenty of members reported that they werent war weary.

Im not war weary, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) reported. You ever been shot at before? (Perry, a brigadier general in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, flew 44 combat missions in Iraq.)

Other members reported that they, too, wouldnt shy away from a fight, and they promised that personal worries and concerns that their caucus could become a scourge of the GOP wouldnt factor into their legislative decisions.

I dont get concerned, Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) said. Thats a feeling. Calvinists have rationality.

And while other members may not share Brats religion, they took the same cool-headed approach.

Hopefully you know me well enough to know that I do things almost exclusively on a policy basis, what I believe is best for America, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told HuffPost on Monday night. And it makes no difference to me who the sponsor of a bill is, who the opponents to a bill may be, or which groups may or may not be behind it.

The Freedom Caucus, like Congress itself, has a long list of hurdles for the remainder of the year. Former chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) laid out a busy schedule Monday night of dealing with the CR, then the budget, then tax reform, then individual appropriations bills, then the infrastructure bill, then another spending bill, and then the debt ceiling.

But Jordan also mentioned that he could see a border and defense supplemental becoming part of the CR, raising the possibility that the Freedom Caucus will draw that as their hard line, potentially threatening a government shutdown over Democratic objections about funding a border wall but perhaps winning over one newfound critic: President Donald Trump.

As much as the conservative caucus pretends all is well with its group, it is taking some heat from Trump and GOP leadership. Over the weekend, one of its most moderate members, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), quit the caucus, citing a mob mentality that had become destructive toward legislating.

Meadows poured on the praise for Poe on Monday night, but he said the strength of any group is in its ability to stick together. I wouldnt classify that as a mob, Meadows said.

But true to their pugnacious style, some members couldnt help taking a slight dig at Poe and a larger but more amenable conservative group, the Republican Study Committee.

When Labrador was asked about the Freedom Caucus losing members, Labrador made it clear he looks down upon members who dont have the fight in them. If you dont want to do the hard work of legislating and taking a position, thats why we have the RSC, he said.

See the original post here:

Freedom Caucus Considers Its Next Fight: Planned Parenthood - Huffington Post

Poor people shouldnt be stuck here just because they cant afford bail.

3dmentat/iStock

As a defense attorney in Houston, Kim Ogg saw defendant after defendant forced to make a terrible choice. People charged with low-level crimes such as driving without a license or trespassing would often have their bail set at thousands of dollarstoo high for poor defendants to afford. The accused would have to decide between pleading guilty, even if they werent, and spending weeks or months in jail waiting for a trial. When given those options, its very hard to resist pleading guilty, Ogg said. Some of her clients insisted on pleading guilty at times because they wanted out. They were willing to say they were guilty and take the deal, even if they were innocent.

Prosecutors can and should prevent people accused of committing low-level crimes from being jailed due to a lack of money.

Its a common story in courts around the country: Because of sky-high bail amounts, less affluent defendants are stuck in jail for low-level crimes while wealthy ones can buy their freedom by writing a check.

This inequity has been the target of a vigorous reform movement. In legislative action and lawsuits from New Jersey to Texas to California, advocates are passing new laws or hoping to codify legal rights that establish that people charged with misdemeanors shouldnt be kept in jail only because they cant afford bail.

But theres a simpler and faster way to end cash bail: Prosecutors can just stop asking for it. Bail is set by judges, but prosecutors have huge influence on the process. When defendants appear for bail hearings, prosecutors are the ones making the bail recommendations. While defense attorneys can request lower bail, the prosecutors word tends to hold more weight.

Some big-city district attorneys have started to take that responsibility seriously. Ogg, who was elected DA of Harris County, Texas, last year, recently directed her prosecutors to recommend defendants be released on their own recognizance as the default in most misdemeanor cases.

The new policy exempts defendants who present a clear public safety risk, Ogg says, including those charged with domestic violence and driving while intoxicated. But in most of the 65,000 misdemeanor cases her office sees each year, prosecutors are now recommending defendants be released before trial. Any requests for bail must be based on evidence in the case.

Even if a prosecutor recommends releasing someone charged with a misdemeanor on his or her own recognizance, a judge can still choose to set whatever bail he or she wants. In the first week the new policy was in place, many Harris County judges pushed back on prosecutors, Ogg says, grilling them about why they werent recommending bail and in some cases ignoring their recommendations.

But Oggwho made bail reform a central issue in her campaign last yearhopes that as judges get used to the rare sight of prosecutors and defense attorneys agreeing on bail, theyll adjust to a new system.

Oggs decision comes as the county faces a high-profile class-action lawsuit over its bail practices. The lawsuit was filed by 22-year-old Maranda Lynn ODonnell, who was arrested in 2016 for driving with a suspended license and spent several days in a Harris County jail because she couldnt pay her $2,500 bond. ODonnell is arguing that it is unconstitutional for officials to jail someone for an inability to make a monetary payment.

During a hearing in the case this month, ODonnells attorneys played videos of judges callously setting bond amounts without even inquiring whether defendants had the means to pay them. Some of the bonds strain credulity, like $5,000 for someone arrested for illegally sleeping under a highway overpass. Ogg filed a pointed brief supporting the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. We do not want to administer punishment before the defendant has been adjudicated guilty, she wrote. It makes no sense to spend public funds to house misdemeanor offenders in a high-security penal facility when the crimes themselves may not merit jail time. Lawyers in the case say a ruling could come down at any time.

Ogg isnt the only DA whos made bail reform a priority. Earlier this month, Kim Foxx, the newly elected states attorney in Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, announced her office will support the release of defendants who are locked up because they cant pay bonds amounting to less than $1,000. In Cook County, 250 to 300 people are jailed every day for misdemeanors under bonds of that value.

Foxx said she hopes those defendants will be able to get treatment services instead of languishing in a jail cell. This is a population who are disproportionately poor and also have some other underlying condition whether its a drug addiction or mental illness, she told the Chicago Tribune.

In San Franciscowhere another lawsuit against the bail system is working its way through the courtsDistrict Attorney George Gascn has called bail inherently unfair and archaic. In a statement issued to Slate, Gascn said, Defendants who pose little risk of re-offending, and who will appear for trial, should not remain in jail simply because they cannot afford bail.

Gascn and judicial officials in California started a pilot program using a computer algorithm to recommend bail amounts based on factors like pending charges and criminal records. The DAs office says the algorithm has led to twice the number of defendants being released before arraignment. But public defenders told the San Francisco Chronicle last year that some prosecutors still ask for high bail amounts even when the algorithm recommends release, and Gascn hasnt yet set any kind of departmentwide policy like the ones in Houston and Chicago.

Bail reform isnt just the province of big-city district attorneys. Last month, Christian Gossett, the DA in Winnebago County, Wisconsin, realized that many poor defendants who were arrested on weekends or holidays ended up sitting in jail because no prosecutors were available for a bond hearing; almost 80 percent of the arrestees were released on their own recognizance at their first hearing the next work day. In response, as Gossett explained in a letter to county judges, he waived all appearances by prosecutors for hearings on weekends and holidays, letting judges release low-level defendants right away.

The cases in question are those in which the individuals freedom currently hangs on their ability to post (typically) $150, $300 or $500 in cash, on a credit card or through a friend or family member, Gossett wrote in the letter. No other factor differentiates their ability to be released from custody than all other individuals taken into custody on similar misdemeanor offenses, hence my concern for equal protection.

Traditionally, its been rare for district attorneys to publicly criticize the money bail system as unfair and unjust, says Alec Karakatsanis, the founder of the criminal justice reform advocacy group Civil Rights Corps. Its one thing when activists say it, its another thing when its validated by the people in charge of the justice system, he said. It helps change the entire narrative when the chief law enforcement officers say it isnt fair and causes harm to our communities.

But Karakatsanis, one of the lawyers in the Houston bail lawsuit, cautions that even progressive policies like those set by Ogg and Foxx dont always make it to the courtroom. It can take some time for the policies of the head DA to sift down to the lower-level attorneys who actually try cases, he pointed out.

Meanwhile, some county sheriffs are also jumping on the reform bandwagon, in part because removing low-level pretrial offenders from their jails saves a lot of money and resources. Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez and former San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi have both openly supported lawsuits aimed at ending cash bail. Gonzalez even testified against Harris County in the lawsuit in his jurisdiction, telling the court, when most of the people in my jail are there because they cant afford to bond out, and when those people are disproportionately black and Hispanic, thats not a rational system. Mirkarimi pointed out that electronic monitoring technologies, which are being used in a growing number of court systems, make it easier to guarantee defendants come to court even if they dont have their money on the line.

The legal argument being tested in lawsuits like the one in Houston is that cash bail violates the Constitutions Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, as it provides a different set of judicial procedures for rich and poor defendants. The Supreme Court has ruled that bail amounts should be based on the circumstances of individual defendants, although it hasnt articulated a specific right to bail. Theres room to go further: In Indiana, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled last year that judges in almost all cases should not set any monetary bail unless defendants pose a substantial risk of flight or danger to themselves or others.

Broader changes could come to cash bail systems around the country if more judges make similar rulings. But Ogg and Foxx are showing that district attorneys shouldnt wait for that to happenprosecutors can and should prevent people accused of committing low-level crimes from being jailed due to a lack of money. Keeping people in jail just because theyre too poor to pay bail does not make the public safer, Ogg said. Its not the way our justice system was envisioned, and we can do better.

The rest is here:

Making Freedom Free - Slate Magazine