• Girl died apparently after finding drugs in house • Owner, a respected academic, bailed by police Friends of a schoolgirl who died after apparently finding drugs during a party at the home of respected academic gathered in a park to hold a vigil in memory of the popular teenager. Fifteen-year-old Isobel Reilly died following the party at the house of Brian Dodgeon, who works at the University of London’s Institute of Education. Dodgeon, 60, who was allegedly not present at the time of the party on Friday night and Saturday morning, has been arrested on suspicion of possession of drugs and child abandonment. Isobel was at the party with Dodgeon’s daughter and other friends. A postmortem has not yet taken place, but one theory police are looking at is that Isobel and others found drugs including ecstasy at the house and tried them. One of Isobel’s friends called 999 at around 4am on Saturday when she stopped breathing. The London Ambulance Service took Isobel from the house in North Kensington, west London, to hospital, but she died later that morning. Dodgeon’s 14-year-old daughter and two teenage boys were detained in hospital for observation before being discharged. The youngsters are believed to have spent the evening partying after Dodgeon and his partner went out for the night. Neighbours, who had been warned that a party would be taking place, reported that the event got out of hand and fighting broke out. On Monday friends of Isobel gathered at Chiswick Common, west London, to pay their respects to the popular teenager. Dozens laid flowers and left tributes. One from Denisha Forde read: “RIP Issy. You didn’t deserve to die. You was a lovely girl who’s in a better place. You’ll be missed by everyone, you know even though you’re gone I still feel you’re here. It brings tears to my eyes just writing this.” Another from Daisy Onipede said: “Them jokes, memories on the bus to Chiswick literally almost every day … Gonna miss you so much! Heaven’s lucky to have a beautiful angel like you.” Parents of Isobel’s friends expressed shock at what happened. One father said: “My boy was at the party that night but he shouldn’t have even been there. When I found out I went to pick him up at 11.30pm. “He didn’t take anything. They hadn’t gone looking for stuff by then. It was about 2am that they found them and by 4am Issy was dead. He added: “I can’t imagine how the dad is feeling. It’s such a waste of life.” Isobel’s English teacher, Jaye Williamson, said she was a “larger than life, lovely character” who will be sadly missed. She said the whole school was devastated over what had happened and warned of the dangers of drugs, adding: “We all know the kind of things teenagers get into. She [Issy] got caught out. Everyone is just racked with grief.” One of Isobel’s friends sang the Mariah Carey song Hero, Adele’s Make You Feel My Love and Ave Maria. In a statement, Isobel’s family, who live in nearby Acton, said: “Isobel’s family and friends are devastated and heartbroken by her untimely death. We hope that if anything positive comes from this dreadful event, it is that others will make the right decisions to be safe and well in the future. “We would very much appreciate time to grieve for our beloved Issy in private. If anyone has any information concerning Issy’s death could they please contact the police.” Tony Ryan, head of Chiswick Community School, said: “Isobel was an extremely popular girl at our school and counted many of her fellow pupils as friends. “Her tragically early death is devastating news to everyone associated with the school and all our thoughts are with her family at this time.” Dodgeon, who has written papers on subjects ranging from alcohol consumption to social housing and rural population rates, has been bailed until June. Professor Chris Husbands, the director of the Institute of Education, said: “The institute was deeply sorry to hear of the tragic events and extends its sympathy to Isobel Reilly’s family and friends. “We understand that a police inquiry has begun into those events. My senior team and I will be meeting tomorrow morning to make appropriate decisions on the way we will proceed.” Crime Drugs Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
French president and Italian prime minister want to curb passport-free EU travel after row over north African immigrants Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi are expected to call on Tuesday for a partial reintroduction of national border controls across Europe, a move that would put the brakes on European integration and curb passport-free travel for more than 400 million people in 25 countries. The French president and the Italian prime minister are meeting in Rome after weeks of tension between their two countries over how to cope with an influx of more than 25,000 immigrants fleeing revolutions in north Africa. The migrants, mostly Tunisian, reached the EU by way of Italian islands such as Lampedusa, but many hoped to get work in France where they have relatives and friends. Earlier this month, Berlusconi’s government outraged several EU governments, including France, by offering the migrants temporary residence permits which, in principle, allowed them to travel to other member states under the Schengen agreement. An Italian junior minister said on Sunday that Rome had so far issued some 8,000 permits and expected the number would rise to 11,000. Launched in 1995, Schengen allows passport-free travel in most of the EU, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. But the documents issued by the Italian authorities are only valid if the holders can show they have the means to support themselves, and French police have rounded up or turned back an unknown number of migrants in recent days. On 17 April, Paris blocked trains crossing the frontier at Ventimiglia in protest at the Italian initiative. “Rarely have the two countries seemed so far apart,” said Le Monde in an editorial on Monday. Yet, with both leaders under pressure from the far right, French and Italian officials appear to have agreed a common position on amending Schengen so that national border checks can be reintroduced in “special circumstances”. According to a report from Paris in the Italian daily La Repubblica, the two countries would also press for an increase in EU assistance to those countries that have to cope with immigrant influxes – a key Italian demand. On Saturday, Berlusconi’s spokesman said: “Agreement has been reached.” Indications of a deal have prompted outrage from the French opposition. Harlem Désir of the Socialist party said: “Sarkozy and Berlusconi are disgracing Europe.” A joint initiative would certainly be an historic departure for two countries that have long been regarded as among the most fervently “European”. Schengen is seen as the EU’s most significant integration project after the euro. Now both are under pressure, a sign of the tensions eating away at the union. Sarkozy, low in the polls and hoping for re-election next year, is threatened by the Front National and its leader, Marine Le Pen, who calls for the total scrapping of Schengen. Berlusconi, whose poll ratings have also been sliding, is dependent for his majority in parliament on the xenophobic Northern League, one of whose leaders, Roberto Maroni, is Italy’s interior minister. Even before the exodus from Tunisia, gains by far-right, anti-immigrant parties in north Europe had put Schengen under strain. Centrist parties in Germany, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands have all tried to appease the far right by threatening to re-erect national border controls. EU interior ministers are to meet on 12 May to try to resolve the issue. A joint Franco-Italian demand would need to be endorsed at the EU level. It has been framed against a background of mutual exasperation with Greece over its difficulties in policing its frontier with Turkey, an EU external border thought to be the main crossing point into the union for clandestine migrants. Seaborne migration to islands such as Lampedusa, though highly visible, accounts for only a fraction of the total number of illegal entries. Italy, however, is concerned that an end to the hostilities in Libya could prompt a renewed surge in attempted crossings by people who would not necessarily want to move to other EU states. Alfredo Mantovano, the junior interior minister responsible for immigration, said “the number of people involved could be 50,000″. Europe Nicolas Sarkozy Silvio Berlusconi France Italy European Union Immigration and asylum Arab and Middle East unrest John Hooper Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …French president and Italian prime minister want to curb passport-free EU travel after row over north African immigrants Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi are expected to call on Tuesday for a partial reintroduction of national border controls across Europe, a move that would put the brakes on European integration and curb passport-free travel for more than 400 million people in 25 countries. The French president and the Italian prime minister are meeting in Rome after weeks of tension between their two countries over how to cope with an influx of more than 25,000 immigrants fleeing revolutions in north Africa. The migrants, mostly Tunisian, reached the EU by way of Italian islands such as Lampedusa, but many hoped to get work in France where they have relatives and friends. Earlier this month, Berlusconi’s government outraged several EU governments, including France, by offering the migrants temporary residence permits which, in principle, allowed them to travel to other member states under the Schengen agreement. An Italian junior minister said on Sunday that Rome had so far issued some 8,000 permits and expected the number would rise to 11,000. Launched in 1995, Schengen allows passport-free travel in most of the EU, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. But the documents issued by the Italian authorities are only valid if the holders can show they have the means to support themselves, and French police have rounded up or turned back an unknown number of migrants in recent days. On 17 April, Paris blocked trains crossing the frontier at Ventimiglia in protest at the Italian initiative. “Rarely have the two countries seemed so far apart,” said Le Monde in an editorial on Monday. Yet, with both leaders under pressure from the far right, French and Italian officials appear to have agreed a common position on amending Schengen so that national border checks can be reintroduced in “special circumstances”. According to a report from Paris in the Italian daily La Repubblica, the two countries would also press for an increase in EU assistance to those countries that have to cope with immigrant influxes – a key Italian demand. On Saturday, Berlusconi’s spokesman said: “Agreement has been reached.” Indications of a deal have prompted outrage from the French opposition. Harlem Désir of the Socialist party said: “Sarkozy and Berlusconi are disgracing Europe.” A joint initiative would certainly be an historic departure for two countries that have long been regarded as among the most fervently “European”. Schengen is seen as the EU’s most significant integration project after the euro. Now both are under pressure, a sign of the tensions eating away at the union. Sarkozy, low in the polls and hoping for re-election next year, is threatened by the Front National and its leader, Marine Le Pen, who calls for the total scrapping of Schengen. Berlusconi, whose poll ratings have also been sliding, is dependent for his majority in parliament on the xenophobic Northern League, one of whose leaders, Roberto Maroni, is Italy’s interior minister. Even before the exodus from Tunisia, gains by far-right, anti-immigrant parties in north Europe had put Schengen under strain. Centrist parties in Germany, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands have all tried to appease the far right by threatening to re-erect national border controls. EU interior ministers are to meet on 12 May to try to resolve the issue. A joint Franco-Italian demand would need to be endorsed at the EU level. It has been framed against a background of mutual exasperation with Greece over its difficulties in policing its frontier with Turkey, an EU external border thought to be the main crossing point into the union for clandestine migrants. Seaborne migration to islands such as Lampedusa, though highly visible, accounts for only a fraction of the total number of illegal entries. Italy, however, is concerned that an end to the hostilities in Libya could prompt a renewed surge in attempted crossings by people who would not necessarily want to move to other EU states. Alfredo Mantovano, the junior interior minister responsible for immigration, said “the number of people involved could be 50,000″. Europe Nicolas Sarkozy Silvio Berlusconi France Italy European Union Immigration and asylum Arab and Middle East unrest John Hooper Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former home secretary appeals to Labour voters, saying the Tories have ‘most to lose from a fairer voting system’ Alan Johnson, the former home secretary and Labour grandee, has accused the coalition of hijacking the AV debate to air its “petty tensions”, after a series of high-profile clashes between ministers over next week’s referendum. Johnson told the Guardian that the debate was “bigger than the Liberal Democrats” and appealed to Labour voters to back the alternative vote, claiming that a vote against reform was in effect a vote for the Conservatives. The cabinet will meet for the first time after the Easter recess on Tuesday, with coalition relations at a new low. On Saturday, Vince Cable, the business secretary, appealed to Labour voters to back AV to end Tory domination, and on Sunday Nick Clegg accused David Cameron of being part of “a rightwing clique who want to keep things the way they are”. The row culminated with the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, suggesting he may take legal action against some of the claims made by Tories during their campaign against AV. Johnson told the Guardian: “The issue in this referendum is bigger than the Lib Dems or petty tensions in the coalition. “People don’t care who is going to sue who, but people do want a better politics and what we should be doing is debating just how AV will improve our politics. “The no camp love these squabbles because it does their job for them. What Labour voters need to ask is who wants them to vote no most. It’s the Tories. They are bankrolling the no campaign because they know they have most to lose from a fairer voting system.” Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Lib Dems, has warned against ministers letting AV become the issue that breaks the coalition, suggesting that the Tories could be using the row to distance themselves from their government partners in order to curry favour with disgruntled backbenchers. “Perhaps they will be satisfied by the notion that David Cameron is not rolling over in front of Nick Clegg,” he told the BBC. “Remember, this is a five-year agreement in a five-year parliament. The public would find themselves, I think, pretty cynical, if after a period of 12 months or 15 months, this were all to fall apart. But more to the point, the national interest, in whose name this coalition was forged, would be deeply, deeply damaged.” But the row appears to be rumbling on. Mark Pritchard, the secretary of the Conservative 1922 committee, said: “Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne should stop their whingeing. With each of them presiding over major government departments, they’ve never had it so good. “Their personal and political sacrifices are infinitesimal compared to those made by the hundreds of public sector workers losing their jobs each week and many Conservative colleagues who gave up ministerial office for the sake of the coalition.” The Labour leadership sought to stay out of the growing row between the coalition partners – Labour MPs are divided between the yes and no camps – but a source in the leader’s office questioned whether the coalition could continue after such public displays of division. “The key issue is going to be after 5 May: how are they, as a government based on political convenience rather than principle, going to be coherent and functional having been through this,” the source said. “They are going to have to pretend that everything is hunky dory in the rose garden again.” Downing Street sources from both coalition partners said they always expected the AV campaign to become “feisty”, but insisted that they could regroup after the referendum, regardless of the result – as they had done when they formed the coalition after the acrimonious election campaign. The Electoral Commission confirmed there was no law governing claims made during referendum campaigns, meaning that Huhne’s threat of legal action is unlikely to go ahead. On Tuesday the no campaign will seek to prove its cross-party credentials when the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, takes part in telephone campaigning alongside the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett to campaign against AV. Alternative vote Alan Johnson Electoral reform Liberal-Conservative coalition Labour Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former home secretary appeals to Labour voters, saying the Tories have ‘most to lose from a fairer voting system’ Alan Johnson, the former home secretary and Labour grandee, has accused the coalition of hijacking the AV debate to air its “petty tensions”, after a series of high-profile clashes between ministers over next week’s referendum. Johnson told the Guardian that the debate was “bigger than the Liberal Democrats” and appealed to Labour voters to back the alternative vote, claiming that a vote against reform was in effect a vote for the Conservatives. The cabinet will meet for the first time after the Easter recess on Tuesday, with coalition relations at a new low. On Saturday, Vince Cable, the business secretary, appealed to Labour voters to back AV to end Tory domination, and on Sunday Nick Clegg accused David Cameron of being part of “a rightwing clique who want to keep things the way they are”. The row culminated with the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, suggesting he may take legal action against some of the claims made by Tories during their campaign against AV. Johnson told the Guardian: “The issue in this referendum is bigger than the Lib Dems or petty tensions in the coalition. “People don’t care who is going to sue who, but people do want a better politics and what we should be doing is debating just how AV will improve our politics. “The no camp love these squabbles because it does their job for them. What Labour voters need to ask is who wants them to vote no most. It’s the Tories. They are bankrolling the no campaign because they know they have most to lose from a fairer voting system.” Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Lib Dems, has warned against ministers letting AV become the issue that breaks the coalition, suggesting that the Tories could be using the row to distance themselves from their government partners in order to curry favour with disgruntled backbenchers. “Perhaps they will be satisfied by the notion that David Cameron is not rolling over in front of Nick Clegg,” he told the BBC. “Remember, this is a five-year agreement in a five-year parliament. The public would find themselves, I think, pretty cynical, if after a period of 12 months or 15 months, this were all to fall apart. But more to the point, the national interest, in whose name this coalition was forged, would be deeply, deeply damaged.” But the row appears to be rumbling on. Mark Pritchard, the secretary of the Conservative 1922 committee, said: “Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne should stop their whingeing. With each of them presiding over major government departments, they’ve never had it so good. “Their personal and political sacrifices are infinitesimal compared to those made by the hundreds of public sector workers losing their jobs each week and many Conservative colleagues who gave up ministerial office for the sake of the coalition.” The Labour leadership sought to stay out of the growing row between the coalition partners – Labour MPs are divided between the yes and no camps – but a source in the leader’s office questioned whether the coalition could continue after such public displays of division. “The key issue is going to be after 5 May: how are they, as a government based on political convenience rather than principle, going to be coherent and functional having been through this,” the source said. “They are going to have to pretend that everything is hunky dory in the rose garden again.” Downing Street sources from both coalition partners said they always expected the AV campaign to become “feisty”, but insisted that they could regroup after the referendum, regardless of the result – as they had done when they formed the coalition after the acrimonious election campaign. The Electoral Commission confirmed there was no law governing claims made during referendum campaigns, meaning that Huhne’s threat of legal action is unlikely to go ahead. On Tuesday the no campaign will seek to prove its cross-party credentials when the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, takes part in telephone campaigning alongside the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett to campaign against AV. Alternative vote Alan Johnson Electoral reform Liberal-Conservative coalition Labour Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Fox News Gives Frank Luntz A Full Hour To Sell Fear and Loathing of Government
April 25, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Until about 2 months ago I never, ever watched Fox News. Never. What little I knew about them came from the clips here on C&L in posts (I’ve been a C&L reader since 2005). I knew they were horrible because of those clips. But a few months ago I decided the time had come to face the Fox beast head-on and really see if it was as bad as I thought it was. I discovered it was worse. And the Frank Luntz/Sean Hannity special on the “real voters of America” has to be one of the worst examples of it. In this Hannity propaganda piece special, they claim to have compiled an audience of voters who are a blend of Obama voters and conservatives. They’re careful to note that they’re Obama voters, not Obama supporters. There is a difference. Assume the audience is a group of ultra-conservatives, conservatives, and conservative independents who crossed over to vote for Obama. The premise is to deal with why people hate government, feel disconnected, have no confidence in Congress. The true goal, in my opinion, was to reinforce why people hate government. To bring on Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan and their insane plans for this country under the pretense of understanding voter anger is absurd. To bring on 18 tea party freshmen Congressmen just makes them bigger lying liars than they already are. And to cap it off with Jeb Hensarling and Rob Andrews just proves that it’s not about any sincere effort to bring “government and the people” together. It’s about giving Republicans free air time to sell their odious plans with Frank Luntz guiding the discussion with handheld meters of approval or disapproval. Suffice it to say, whenever a Republican opened his or her mouth, the HappyMeter went up to 100%. If a casual viewer were to flip through channels and land on this special, they’d think that every American on the planet stays awake at night wondering how their precious little babies will pay off the national debt, that there’s only one party in Congress, and there are no alternatives other than to lower taxes on the rich and end Medicare and the entire social contract which has worked so well up till now. Which is, of course, exactly what these evil men want people to think. I don’t often call people evil, but what is going on right now in the media at the hands of Fox News is evil. Pure, bold, propaganda. Click here to view this media I have one final clip for you. In this one, they play a commercial which ran in Wisconsin, sponsored by unions. In particular, watch the reaction lines, which start out quite low and rise. Predictably, Democrats approve of it and Republicans disapprove. But when the audience is asked to react, there isn’t one Democrat speaking. Only conservatives who loathe — abhor — unions. There isn’t enough hyperbole in the English language to express how dishonest this segment is. It isn’t until one audience member speaks up and says he’s a teacher and resents the suggestion that he doesn’t work hard that any “liberal” voice is heard. Luntz sums up this segment by saying he understands why Wisconsin looks and sounds like it does. Oh really? Because I really don’t think his understanding and mine come even close to being the same. Here’s what I really want to know. Of the most vocal tea party members in the audience like the woman in this union segment who practically spits venom when she talks, how many of them are high-level operatives and how many are just “ordinary citizens”? I’m betting they might have “forgotten” to disclose that information. The show concludes with Luntz claiming a Citizens United ad run back in January against deficit spending is universally popular with his “bipartisan audience.” And just for good measure, he points to paintings of Lincoln and Reagan as evidence that our country has been far more divided than it is right now. There appears to be no bottom low enough for them to scrape.
Continue reading …Fox News Gives Frank Luntz A Full Hour To Sell Fear and Loathing of Government
April 25, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Until about 2 months ago I never, ever watched Fox News. Never. What little I knew about them came from the clips here on C&L in posts (I’ve been a C&L reader since 2005). I knew they were horrible because of those clips. But a few months ago I decided the time had come to face the Fox beast head-on and really see if it was as bad as I thought it was. I discovered it was worse. And the Frank Luntz/Sean Hannity special on the “real voters of America” has to be one of the worst examples of it. In this Hannity propaganda piece special, they claim to have compiled an audience of voters who are a blend of Obama voters and conservatives. They’re careful to note that they’re Obama voters, not Obama supporters. There is a difference. Assume the audience is a group of ultra-conservatives, conservatives, and conservative independents who crossed over to vote for Obama. The premise is to deal with why people hate government, feel disconnected, have no confidence in Congress. The true goal, in my opinion, was to reinforce why people hate government. To bring on Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan and their insane plans for this country under the pretense of understanding voter anger is absurd. To bring on 18 tea party freshmen Congressmen just makes them bigger lying liars than they already are. And to cap it off with Jeb Hensarling and Rob Andrews just proves that it’s not about any sincere effort to bring “government and the people” together. It’s about giving Republicans free air time to sell their odious plans with Frank Luntz guiding the discussion with handheld meters of approval or disapproval. Suffice it to say, whenever a Republican opened his or her mouth, the HappyMeter went up to 100%. If a casual viewer were to flip through channels and land on this special, they’d think that every American on the planet stays awake at night wondering how their precious little babies will pay off the national debt, that there’s only one party in Congress, and there are no alternatives other than to lower taxes on the rich and end Medicare and the entire social contract which has worked so well up till now. Which is, of course, exactly what these evil men want people to think. I don’t often call people evil, but what is going on right now in the media at the hands of Fox News is evil. Pure, bold, propaganda. Click here to view this media I have one final clip for you. In this one, they play a commercial which ran in Wisconsin, sponsored by unions. In particular, watch the reaction lines, which start out quite low and rise. Predictably, Democrats approve of it and Republicans disapprove. But when the audience is asked to react, there isn’t one Democrat speaking. Only conservatives who loathe — abhor — unions. There isn’t enough hyperbole in the English language to express how dishonest this segment is. It isn’t until one audience member speaks up and says he’s a teacher and resents the suggestion that he doesn’t work hard that any “liberal” voice is heard. Luntz sums up this segment by saying he understands why Wisconsin looks and sounds like it does. Oh really? Because I really don’t think his understanding and mine come even close to being the same. Here’s what I really want to know. Of the most vocal tea party members in the audience like the woman in this union segment who practically spits venom when she talks, how many of them are high-level operatives and how many are just “ordinary citizens”? I’m betting they might have “forgotten” to disclose that information. The show concludes with Luntz claiming a Citizens United ad run back in January against deficit spending is universally popular with his “bipartisan audience.” And just for good measure, he points to paintings of Lincoln and Reagan as evidence that our country has been far more divided than it is right now. There appears to be no bottom low enough for them to scrape.
Continue reading …
Even if Barack Obama had not been born in the US, the birther version of the constitution would’ve excluded John McCain too Barack Obama was born in the United States. But even if he had not been (as the birthers believe), he would still be the legitimate President of the United States. The birther movement (apparently, now led by Donald Trump) argues that article 2, section 1 of the US constitution (“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”) requires that the Barack Obama of their universe (that is, born “abroad”) cannot be the legitimate president. For the birthers, the translation of “natural born citizen’” is simply “those born inside the United States”. To them, anyone born outside the United States is ineligible for the presidency. They are wrong. First, a little disclaimer: the birther attacks are personal to me. I was born in London to an American father and British mother. While I have a great and abiding respect for the UK (my British grandfather was an RAF officer of whom I am incredibly proud), my ultimate allegiance has always belonged to the United States. My father is a former US diplomat and his father was a career US military officer, whose second world war service included Guadalcanal and Okinawa. I believe that my family heritage has earned my right to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. And I believe any cogent reading of the constitution supports me in this belief. While the thinking behind the founding fathers’ adoption of the natural born citizenship clause is not clear, most legal scholars assume that the motivating intention was to prevent (English) royalist infiltration of the US government – an understandable concern at the time. Regardless of that, though, in determining the meaning of the clause, we must consider the developed law. The Naturalisation Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” Just three years after the constitution’s adoption, this would seem to give an early and powerful repudiation of the birther reading of the clause. But it cannot, on its own, clarify the constitution. In Wong Kim v Ark , the US supreme court ruled that a child born in the United States to two US domiciled foreign parents not serving with a foreign government was a natural born citizen. This set the precedent that natural born citizenship could be granted by the principle of “jus soli”, or citizenship from birth in the United States. However, as illustrated by the Naturalisation Act, jus soli cannot account for all Americans. To fill the space of absent court clarification on American citizens born abroad, Congress has provided statutory definition for natural born citizenship. Title 8, section 1401 of the US Title Code provides these definitions to include (among other qualifying citizens) those born abroad to one American parent and one foreign parent, provided the American parent spent five years in the US prior to the child’s birth. The strength of section 1401 is in its clarification of the clause in a logical manner, compatible with the constitution and in a way that can account for American citizens not physically born in the United States. Because the law grants citizenship even to the Obama of the birther universe, the birthers reject section 1401 as unconstitutional. In contrast to the logic of section 1401, the birther reading of the natural born citizenship clause is highly problematic. Put simply, if the only natural born citizens are those born inside the United States, then many “natural’” Americans are left out in the cold. The state department foreign affairs manual (pdf) notes that under the constitution’s 14th amendment, US government installations abroad are not part of the United States. Therefore, according to the birther approach, this would mean, for example, that while a child born inside the United States to foreign tourists or to illegal immigrants is a natural born citizen, John McCain – born on a military base in Panama – is not . The absurdity of such a reading of the constitution is profound. Under the birther approach, foreign service and experience are acts to be punished by deprivation of citizenship rights for the children of servicemen and women and public officials posted overseas. How can we honestly believe that the founding fathers would regard the citizenship of children of those who have served their country abroad as less than that of those residing in the United States? To make this argument as the birthers do is illogical and reflective their distorted and deficient understanding of the US constitution. Barack Obama Donald Trump Tea Party movement Republicans US Congress US constitution and civil liberties John McCain Tom Rogan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Iain Gray launches personal attack and warns disaffected Liberal Democrats to vote against the break-up of the UK The Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray has warned disaffected Liberal Democrats that Alex Salmond is too “downright dangerous” to deserve their support, and is not a “safe option”. Gray has been stung by a series of opinion polls suggesting that the Scottish National party has taken a commanding lead in the race to win the Holyrood election in 10 days, with Alex Salmond set to win a second term as first minister. In a speech intended to reinvigorate Labour’s faltering campaign, Gray admitted that the SNP had “a real chance” of forming the next Scottish government but warned voters they now “stand on the edge” of bringing in a government intent on breaking up the UK. In a message targeting wavering Lib Dem voters, Gray added: “The message on separation is simple: if you don’t want it, don’t vote for it, because Alex Salmond says a second term will give him the moral authority to pursue it.” Gray made a series of personal attacks on Salmond, in a dramatic switch in tactics, claiming the first minister “only cares about his own job, he doesn’t care about yours … he will say anything to anyone to make his vision of independence come true”. After watching their apparent 10-point advantage in the polls evaporate over the past three weeks, stunned Labour officials are openly contemplating defeat on 5 May and some backbench MPs are now directly attacking the handling of the Scottish campaign. Party officials admit that a much larger number of Lib Dem voters and some Tory voters appear to be switching to the SNP in the suburbs and rural areas outside Labour’s core areas in central and west Scotland. Labour’s strategy of focusing their energies on winning 20 target seats has solidified support in those seats but has made the error of ignoring other constituencies and non-core voters. Gray tried to rally Labour activists and campaigners by urging them to attack Salmond’s desire for independence with floating voters and to attack the SNP leader himself. He said Salmond’s pledge to see 100% of Scotland’s electricity generated by renewables by 2020 as “rhetorical fantasy”, and his pledge to deliver a five-year council tax freeze as “not credible”, and his estimated efficiency savings “vague and mysterious”. Labour now estimates that the SNP could win up to 53 or 54 seats, taking constituencies in the Highlands, north-east Scotland and the Borders, in part because some Lib Dem voters want to keep Labour out of power, while Tories may vote tactically for the same reason. Driven by a significant backlash over Nick Clegg’s coalition with David Cameron the polls show the Lib Dem vote has now halved to about 8%, while the Tory vote has also fallen to 12%. “The collapse in Lib Dem support introduces an element of chaos into the election: we can’t pretend that isn’t the case,” said one party official. Labour sources still insist the polls have exaggerated the scale of the SNP’s lead, and believe it will take seats from the SNP and Lib Dems. One senior official said he still believed Labour would win on 5 May, but by a very narrow margin. The polls suggest up to a third of voters are undecided: polling headlines putting the SNP 10 points ahead were based on the opinions of 680 voters. However, the same polls still showed that less than a third of voters support independence, suggesting many voters will disbelieve Gray’s warnings. They also show Salmond remains the most popular leader and most popular choice for first minister. Gray told reporters after his speech that their canvassing showed “a huge number of ‘don’t knows’ and undecideds. So there’s still a lot to play for over the next 10 days”. He added: “What’s happened is that there are very large numbers of Lib Dem and, to a degree, Conservative voters apparently in this poll who look as if they’re either considering shifting to other parties or don’t know who they’re voting for.” They add that some pre-general election polls showed the Clegg and the Lib Dems were beating Labour into third place. Before the 2007 election, the SNP were also 10 points ahead, but only won by one seat over Labour. Alex Salmond Scottish National Party (SNP) Scottish politics Scotland Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Joint Chiefs Staffers Issue Paper Saying America Has Overreacted To Islamic Extremism
April 25, 2011 No CommentHmm. As I was just saying recently, imagine if we as a country defined national security as the health, well-being, education and gainful employment of our citizens, and not as the ability to deliver bombs on targets. I’m not surprised that someone else came to the same obvious conclusion — only that it’s two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying so: On Friday, April 8, as members of the U.S. Congress engaged in a last-minute game of chicken over the federal budget, the Pentagon quietly issued a report that received little initial attention: “A National Strategic Narrative.” The report was issued under the pseudonym of “Mr. Y,” a takeoff on George Kennan’s 1946 “Long Telegram” from Moscow (published under the name “X” the following year in Foreign Affairs) that helped set containment as the cornerstone of U.S. strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union. The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CAPT Wayne Porter, USN and Col Mark “Puck” Mykleby) in a “personal” capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen. The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world. Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world . Instead of simply pumping more and more dollars into defense, the narrative argues: By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young Americans — the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers, inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow — we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment of the future . Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America’s youth.
Continue reading …