US should be proud of Latino immigration, Obama says

President Barack Obama's 2014 campaign team is spotlighting his emotional pitch to Latino voters, saying "our increasing Latino population should be a source of pride and strength."

The Thursday tweet by Organizing For America showcased Obama's statement from an interview with the Spanish-language Telemundo network.

"We know that 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now, there are going to be more people of Latino heritage here in the United States, and that should be a source of pride and a source of strength," he told Telemundo's Denver anchor, Maria Rozmán.

The interview was one of four that Obama did July 16 with Spanish-language TV shows to help build support for the controversial immigration rewrite that would double immigration to add 46 million immigrants to the country by 2033.

The praise for large-scale Latino immigration is the flip-side of Obama's repeated suggestions that GOP opposition to low-skill immigration shows disrespect for Latinos and Latino culture.

That angle is also highlighted by amnesty-supporting pollsters. "Only 29 percent of Latinos felt the Republican Party ' respects the Latino community' while 67 percent said they did not," according to a July survey by Latino Decisions.

Obama's praise for the increased diversity caused by Latino migration reflects many progressives' preference for creating cultural and social variety in place of the broadly-held social consensus that has evolved in many mostly-white suburban and rural communities.

But it also illustrates Democrats' hard-headed efforts to gain politically from the political and economic conflict spurred by the arrival of tens of millions of low-skill and poor Hispanics since 1965.

In general, Democrats have offered to give immigrant Latinos government aid, in the correct expectation they will get their votes in legislative and presidential elections. In 2012, for example, Obama won 71 percent of the Latinos' vote, which comprised 8.4 percent of the electorate.

The GOP's best performance with Latinos came in 2004, when incumbent President George W. Bush won 40 percent during an housing bubble that temporarily provided jobs and houses to many blue-collar Latinos in the southern states.

In one of his July 16 interviews, Obama noted the gradual demographic shift, and also the GOP's growing concern over its political consequences.

"I think some [GOP members] in the House who believe that immigration will encourage further demographic changes - [believe] that may not be good for them politically," he told an interviewer from KXTX, a Telemundo affiliate in Fort Worth, Texas.

"Many of their constituents are suspicious of this, suspicious of what immigration might mean for their political futures in some cases," he added.

In repeated speeches and statements, Obama has lauded what he says is Latinos' contribution to the United States.

So far, that contribution has been modest, because many Latino immigrants and natives are low-skilled and lack good English.

For example, Obama has established a mini-amnesty for foreigners who were brought into the country as children. Many have attended government schools for a decade, and still many lack basic skills.

A report by the Migration Policy Institute, which generally favors Latino immigration, said the amnesty could extend to 800,000 K-12 students, plus 140,000 students enrolled in two-year or four-year colleges, 80,000 Latinos with a college degree and 740,000 Latinos who have a high-school education or who dropped out of high-school.

"We've been able to provide help through deferred action for young people and students - the "Dreamers" - who I've had a chance to meet with," Obama said in an interview with a Univision TV station, WXTV-Univision 41, with audiences in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

"They're just incredible young people and great assets to the United States," he said.

GOP leaders are also trying to demonstrate respect for Latinos and Latino culture. Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has established new deputies to aid outreach to Latino voters.

Some GOP leaders, including Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, say that an immigration rewrite could help boost GOP support among Latinos, and also praise Latinos' culture.

"I live in Miami where half the people in my vibrant beautiful place were born outside the United States," he said at a June 1 appearance at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "When I finally make it home, normally on a Friday afternoon, I spend the night with my ... [Mexican-born] wife who was born outside the United States," he said.

"That [diversity] is the unique American experience that I have had the blessing, truly a blessing, to be able to experience in a way that adds a tremendous amount of vitality to my life," he said.

But Bush also suggested that many Hispanic immigrants won't ever vote GOP. "My hope is ... they will not apply for citizenship... They want to come out of the shadows and be treated with dignity and respect, they don't necessarily want to be citizens," he said.

In contrast, other GOP leaders, such as Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, argue that the GOP can gain more votes from lower-income Americans - white, Latino and African-American - by spurring wage growth via a slowdown in immigration. That appeal to economic self-interest would demonstrate respect for immigrant Latinos by treating them identically to native-born Americans, muting ethnic appeals by Obama and his allies, say people in this GOP wing.

"The response should be to treat Americans of Latin background as Americans," said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks to reduce immigration below its current level of 1 million.

"Their private ethnic interests should be respected, just as anyone else's is - if they want to have 15th birthday parties for their daughters, that's fine - but they need to be addressed as Americans because that's what they are," he said.

"Obama's comment is more like ethnic triumphalism," said Krikorian. "What he's saying is that American is better when it is different, and it will be improved by immigration."

Currently, immigration rules annually add 1 million immigrants per year, plus roughly 650,000 short-term and long-term non-farm guest-workers, despite a steady drop in wages and in the percentage of Americans with jobs. The Senate bill passed in late June would double the inflow to roughly 46 million immigrants by 2033, and boost the number of non-farm guest-workers to roughly 1 million per year.

Latino immigrants are varied, and include skilled and unskilled immigrants from very different countries, including Cuba, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico.

Roughly 65 percent of the U.S. Latino population has ties with Mexico, and they tend to be the poorest group.

"The median annual personal earnings for Mexicans ages 16 and older were $20,000 in [2010]... the same as for U.S. Hispanics in total; the median earnings for the U.S. population were $29,000," said a June 2013 report by the Pew Research Hispanic Center, titled "Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011.

"An estimated 33.5 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2011... some 10 percent of Mexicans ages 25 and older - compared with 13 percent of all U.S. Hispanics and 29 percent among the entire U.S. population - have obtained at least a bachelor's degree," according to the Pew report.

"The share of Mexicans who live in poverty, 28 percent, is higher than the rate for the general U.S. population (16 percent) and slightly higher than the rate for Hispanics overall (26 percent)," it added.

The education level among the Latino illegal immigrants is even lower.

For example, roughly half the 11 million illegals in the United States don't speak English at all or well, according to the MPI.

If the Senate immigration rewrite becomes law, the 11 million would be allowed to live and work in the United States, and be placed on track to win U.S. citizenship.

The 11 million would cost taxpayers $11.3 trillion in federal services over the next 50 years, according to a May report by the Heritage Foundation.The massive bill would be partially offset by the 11 million's various tax payments, which would add up to only $1 trillion every decade.

Iraqi refugee tries to repay welfare money after he becomes a success

In 2009, Sam Eisho walked into the Centrelink office at Maroubra and tried to give the staff a cheque for more than $18,000.

Told to line up at the end of the claims queue, he attempted to explain that he was there to pay back what he felt he owed the Australian Government.

The amount was equivalent to all the welfare payments he received between 1999 and 2001, when he first arrived here and before he started the construction company he's successfully built.

He'd come a long way since he was nearly killed at an Iraqi checkpoint, fleeing Saddam Hussein's regime.

Travelling into Kurdistan, the autonomous region which encompasses parts of Eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq - where Eisho is from - the guards decided they wanted his cash, a small amount of money he needed to complete the journey to see his family.

Enraged, he scrunched the notes - emblazoned with the face of the now-executed dictator - and threw them into the dirt at his feet.

He was led away and locked in a room. And if he had not seen a solider he knew from university, who pleaded for his life, Eisho is sure he would have been killed.

"They would give you a very hard time ... The north of Iraq was separate then," Eisho told Business Insider.

That was when he decided the leave. 11 days after marrying his wife in 1996, she and the civil engineer fled. He was 28 years old, and running from the country he was born in.

Do you have a story for Business Insider Australia? All tips confidential.

After flying to Turkey, they travelled to Greece, at times hidden under furniture in the back of a truck, his wife nearly suffocating. And Eisho - who completed his Bachelor degree at the University of Mosul, spent three years making mattresses.

He came to Australia through legal channels. His uncle, a doctor already living here, was eventually able to sponsor him, and he arrived on the first day in May, 1999.

Since then Eisho, the Managing Director of SR Construction, has built a successful business. Directly, he employs more than 40 people, and has more than 100 sub-contractors, with offices in Sydney's Hillsdale and Ingleburn.

None of it, he says, would have been possible if was not for the support he received from the Australian Government when he got here. It was this debt that saw him standing in the Centrelink line in 2009, trying to explain that he wanted to pay back what he felt he owed.

"They said 'the line is there,' and I said 'no, I'm here to pay you," Eisho said.

"In 2008, 2009 my situation was perfect. I said, 'it's time to go and pay the country back.

"I could not have done anything without Australia's support."

Bureaucracy thwarted him. A cheque made out to the Collector of Public Money (pictured at the foot of this story) for $18,641.43 was returned with a letter suggesting Eisho donate the sum.

In the accompanying note, he had asked if his money could be put towards schools and hospitals.

Asylum seekers are never far removed from Australia's political rhetoric; processing of refugees is one of few issues where there are marked policy differences across the country's political spectrum.

Eisho arrived in Australia legally - it was Greece where he claimed asylum - though he did benefit from a social welfare system others are accused of wallowing in.

He is an exception to what is, by some, painted as a rule.

Eisho was able to secure a builder's licence after completing a TAFE course.

Finding work though, was harder. To make ends meet Eisho went to a group interview for a job at the Coles at the Eastgarden shopping centre, now a short walk from his office in Sydney's south.

Applicants were told to complete an aptitude test, and wait a few days until they were contacted. After the hiring manager saw his results, they said: "You start tomorrow."

The next day while he was on his lunch break, a contractor contacted him, after seeing his advertisement in the local newspaper.

"They called and said we have seen your ad in the Southern Courier.

"They said can you come now, and I said 'of course."

"I left Coles without even any notice, and they started giving me some work, like tiles here, doors there.

"I bought a Toyota Cressida for $500 with savings from Centrelink, me and my wife.

"And then I applied for a credit card from ANZ. That gave me $5000 ... to buy tools, to buy petrol. It was very tough anyway.

His aunt, who is based in the United States lent him $US25,000.

"She knew I was struggling with money."

He has since paid it back twice over. And as well as gifting the $18,000 Eisho has also, he said, donated around $60,000 to Hospitals, and his daughter's primary school.

While he will always feel indebted for the financial assistance that helped make him, Eisho said the main reason he gives so much, is the care his wife received when she gave birth, in Australia, to the couple's daughter - and the contrast to the health care system in his homeland.

"Here, they treat a human being like a human being."

Temar Boggs, American hero

On an ordinary summer afternoon in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, five-year-old Jocelyn Rojas entertained herself playing in her grandmother's front yard. With blonde hair, brown eyes, stylish glasses, and a courageous, radiant smile, Jocelyn is the picture of an adorable all-American girl.

A white man in his seventies approached her. He walked with a limp. Witnesses say he wore green shoes, green pants and a red-and-white striped shirt.

Preying on her innocence, he persuaded Jocelyn to accompany him. He offered to buy her some ice cream. She trusted him.

And just like that, they both vanished.

Jocelyn's family called the police. Authorities issued an Amber Alert signaling a serious child-abduction case.

"Horrible, horrible thoughts flashed through my mind," said Jocelyn's grandmother.

Monsters exist. In real life, they are much scarier than the imaginary horrors of science fiction.

Each year, low-life scumbags abduct about 58,000 unrelated children, primarily for sexual purposes, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Nearly half of these children are sexually assaulted.

Far too often, the abductors murder the children, hold them for ransom, or intend to keep them indefinitely.

"You see the Amber Alerts and you think, 'I feel for that family,'" said Jocelyn's grandmother. "But when you're in that situation ... it's horrible."

The Amber Alert galvanized the community. People of all ages joined in the search for Jocelyn.

Temar Boggs, a fifteen-year-old African American, was helping move an elderly woman's couch at a nearby apartment complex that evening when he learned of the ongoing search.

He and his friend Chris Garcia hopped on their bikes. About a half-mile from the apartment complex, Boggs spotted Jocelyn in a dark red car with an old white man behind the wheel.

Boggs knew they had little time to prevent a young child from becoming another heartbreaking story on the evening news.

He was not going to let that happen. The young men spotted Jocelyn and pursued the car for fifteen minutes.

"Every time we would go down the street, he would turn back around, and we'd go back and follow him," Boggs told WGAL.

"As soon as the guy started noticing that we were chasing him, he stopped at the end of the hill and let her out," Boggs recalled. "She ran to me and said that she needed her mom."

Boggs realizes that he might have saved Jocelyn's life. He sees it as "a blessing for me to make that happen." His proud mother remarked that Boggs is "learning what I tell him, to help others."

The VA's billion dollar boondoggle

Daily Caller News Foundation

A long-planned Veterans Affairs hospital being built in Denver, already hundreds of millions of dollars over its $604 million budget, has turned into a billion-dollar boondoggle for the agency.

The contractor, Kiewit-Turner, blames the VA for ignoring agreements to submit plans that can be built within budget and has asked a federal board overseeing civilian contract disputes to let the company walk away from the job.

Problems with the building emerged in January, when letters between the builder and the VA revealed the project to be running some $200 million over budget, with Kiewit-Turner blaming a pricey design that was only partially completed by the time it entered into the contract.

The two sides subsequently agreed - via a handwritten agreement - to build the hospital within the original budget, with the VA in charge of submitting a new, pared-down design reflecting a number of cost-saving measures.

But in a July 8 complaint to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Kiewit-Turner said the VA submitted new plans that are even more expensive than the old ones.

"In fact, the VA has never provided Kiewit-Turner with a complete design for the Project that could be constructed anywhere close to the ECCA [estimated Cost of Construction at Award]," the complaint reads.

The new plans "were increasingly complex, including few cost reductions than expected, significantly increased the scope of work and made the budget problem worse rather than better," the complaint reads.

The company estimates it will cost over $1 billion to complete the new hospital.

"The VA continues to direct Kiewit-Turner to perform work in accordance with its purported 100% design while at the same time acknowledging ... that the VA's design greatly exceeds both the ECCA and the Ceiling Price and yet refusing to increase the Ceiling Price."

As a result, Kiewit-Turner said in its complaint, it would essentially be financing as much as $400 million of the VA's building if it were to follow the new design plans without further funding from Congress.

The company alleges that the VA is breaching its handwritten agreement and therefore the company is under no obligation to continue work.

The new hospital is meant to replace an existing but aging facility. Plans for it have been in the works since 1999.

"As a combat veteran and as a taxpayer, I couldn't be more embarrassed over what is happening with the construction of our hospital," Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman told the Denver Post. Coffman serves on the U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the new building is being constructed in his district.

"Our veterans, who have made tremendous sacrifices on our behalf, deserve better than this," he's quoted as saying. "And the taxpayers, who are stuck with paying the bill, also deserve better than this."

In response to the company's complaint, Thaddeus Willoughby, a senior contracting officer with the VA, denied in a letter sent to the company in June that it breached the contract. Willoughby wrote that just because the cost is going to be higher doesn't mean Kiewit-Turner can walk away from the job.

"A contractor cannot refuse performance on the ground that performance would entail substantial additional expense not taken into account in its bid price," he wrote. "Receipt of subcontractor bids in excess of those anticipated by KT's allocation on this project is not a basis for an adjustment of the ceiling price. Moreover, none of KT's assertions form a sufficient basis for refusal to continue performance."

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals will take up the matter at a future date.

Follow Greg on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Lawsuit: Arizona college suspended student because she wanted English

A nursing student at Pima Community College (PCC) has filed a lawsuit claiming that she was illegally suspended after she complained that her classmates were speaking in Spanish and orally translating English to Spanish so excessively that she was failing to learn.

In early April, the student, Terri Bennett, formally requested a rule limiting classroom discussion to English. Nursing program director David Kutzler allegedly responded by called her a "bigot and a bitch," reports Courthouse News Service.

Kutzler allegedly charged that Bennett was "discriminating against Mexican-Americans" and threatened to report her complaint as a violation of the school's policies against discriminatory behavior and harassment.

"You do not want to go down that road," he said, according to the filing.

Bennett, 50, recalls leaving the meeting in distress and in tears.

A second meeting two days later involved Bennett, Kutzler and three more PCC staffers. The public school officials allegedly told Bennett that she would "not get a job" because of her desire to limit class discussion to English. She claims they said she should "seek counseling" and that she might have a learning disability.

Kutzler also allegedly produced an anonymous evaluation form that Bennett had filled out, also suggesting a "no Spanish in the classroom" rule.

Later in April, Bennett received critical feedback from a teacher-for the first time, she maintains. The critique chastised Bennett for "ineffective communication skills."

Then, on April 22, Bennett received a suspension letter from the state-owned school. The charges levied against her included discrimination, "stalking" and "bullying." She also allegedly argued with a professor about the correct answer to a test question.

Her indefinite suspension was to last "until she receives counseling to improve her communication style and to learn to be less abrasive," the lawsuit states.

"Six armed" campus security officers promptly escorted her off PCC's Desert Vista campus. The officers then allegedly followed her several miles down the road to Interstate 10.

Bennett sued the community college and its boards of directors in an Arizona state court under several causes of action including harassment, breach of contract, retaliation, discrimination and violations of the Arizona Constitution. The college and its board of governors are the only defendants.

Article 28 of Arizona's state constitution establishes English as "the official language of the state." Section 3 states: "A person shall not be discriminated against or penalized in any way because the person uses or attempts to use English in public or private communication."

Report: 'Gasland' director made false breast cancer claims

Daily Caller News Foundation

Scientists told Judgesaysgenerationgapcausingissuesw.blogspot.com that environmentalists may be twisting the facts when it comes to their criticism of hydraulic fracturing.

One of the most controversial claims against fracking is that it has caused breast cancer rates to spike in North Texas Barnett Shale, where oil and gas companies have been drilling for about a decade.

Josh Fox, environmentalist and maker of the anti-fracking "Gasland" series, argued in a letter sent to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that breast cancer rates spiked in an area of the Barnett Shale where extensive drilling is taking place.

"In Texas, as throughout the United States, cancer rates fell," Fox tells viewers in a creepy voice in his short film "The Sky is Pink." "Except in one place: in the Barnett Shale. The five counties where there was the most drilling saw a rise in breast cancer throughout the counties."

Simon Craddock Lee, a professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, called Fox's claims "a classic case of the ecological fallacy." It is false to suggest that breast cancer is linked to just one factor when things like diet, lifestyle and access to health care are also factors.

However, there has been no such spike in breast cancer rates, according to researchers.

The AP notes: "David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike supposedly occurred. ... And Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major cancer advocacy group based in Dallas, said it sees no evidence of a spike, either."

Fox remained adamant that his claim was correct, responding to the AP by citing a Centers for Disease Control press release and a newspaper article, neither of which appeared to support his contention.

In fact, the story that Fox cited noted that while "local breast cancer rates are up, they are still below the national average."

The AP notes: "When Fox was told that Texas cancer researchers said rates didn't increase, he replied in an email that the claim of unusually high breast cancer rates was 'widely reported' and said there is 'more than enough evidence to warrant much deeper study.'"

This is not the only time Fox has been criticized for misleading viewers.

One scene in his most recent film "Gasland II" showed a man being able to light to contents of his hose on fire, but a Texas court recently found that this was a hoax done at the behest of a Texas environmental activist who was engaged in a prolonged battle with an oil and gas company.

"This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning," the court ruled last year.

Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals into cracks in rock formations to widen them and allow more oil and gas to escape, increasing the amounts that can be recovered. The process occurs at about 8,000 feet below ground, and thousands of feet below groundwater sources.

Environmentalists argue that chemicals from fracking seep up through the ground and can contaminate water supplies. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to find evidence of groundwater contamination linked to fracking and a recent Energy Department study found no evidence of fracking contaminating drinking water in western Pennsylvania.

Follow Michael on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

You won't believe what teachers plan to tell kids about Trayvon Martin

Daily Caller News Foundation

In the wake of the verdict in the Trayvon Martin shooting, several teachers said they would invoke mob justice, vigilantism and the idea that Florida law allows people to hunt and kill black kids when discussing the case with their students.

The Hairpin, a prominent liberal women's blog, asked several teachers, counselors and professors to explain how they would talk about the case - which reached its conclusion last week after George Zimmerman was found innocent of Martin's murder - in their classrooms.

An anonymous English teacher in Alabama said that she would be hesitant to formally "teach" the subject, but nonetheless thought it could be brought up in relation to vigilantism in literature such as "To Kill A Mockingbird" and the works of William Faulkner.

"The thing is, I see Trayvon Martins everyday," wrote the teacher. "I worry about young black men and their prospects in a world where a man is able to kill one without being convicted of something. Even if it isn't as simple as that, kids will see it that way. Rednecks are holding their heads a little higher and tapping the guns on their holsters eager for a stand your ground moment."

Some have alleged that Zimmerman killed Martin in an act of vigilante-style execution, though the jury ultimately acquitted him based on his self-defense claim. Zimmerman suffered bruises and cuts during the altercation, and said that Martin was on top of him and he feared for his life when he fired his gun.

Nevertheless, another teacher cited the verdict as evidence of the "fact that Florida law allows people to hunt and kill black youth," and said that it was important to talk about it with students.

"Ultimately, this is such an important and indicative decision that it needs to be addressed," wrote Abe Cohen, a high school teacher in the Bronx.

Dr. Imani Perry, a Princeton professor who said her two black children cried when they heard Zimmerman had been acquitted - and feared that he was coming to kill them - expressed the view that kids need to be educated about racial inequity in the context of the verdict.

"I believe that if children are guided honestly through the reality of the world in which they live, it will help them build resilience," wrote Perry.

An anonymous high school counselor in California said he thought teachers should talk to students about Florida law, helping them reach the conclusion that the laws are unjust and need to be changed.

"I think it'd be interesting for students to look at the laws in Florida and see WHY the jury made this decision," he wrote. "It may be unjust, but WHY was it made? And maybe it's the law that's the problem in this case? And what can we do to change that?"

Other teachers did express the view that any in-class discussions of the Martin case should be neutral.

"I'd welcome discussing Trayvon, and I'd do my best to facilitate in a neutral way," wrote Lindsey Hunter Lopez, a high school English teacher.

Follow Robby on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Desperate Homophobes Tell Women Gay Rights Will Rob Them Of Husbands

By Amanda MarcotteMonday, July 22, 2013 13:24 EDT

"The Supreme Court overturned DOMA? I'm finally free to dump this lady and get on Grindr!," Said no man ever.

Marriage equality opponents are getting desperate, desperate enough to use the "your spouse is going to abandon you!" tactic to try to turn people against same sex marriage. No, seriously, NOM and the Heritage Foundation are trying to argue that allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow produce more single mothers.

But how can we say that fathers are essential, if policy redefines marriage to make fathers optional?

"[R]edefining marriage further distances marriage from the needs of children and denies the importance of mothers and fathers. Redefining marriage rejects as a matter of policy the ideal that children need a mother and a father," explains Heritage's Ryan T. Anderson. "Redefining marriage diminishes the social pressures for husbands to remain with their wives and children, and for men and women to marry before having children," he continues.

The entire thing is quite a remarkable attempt at trying to baffle people with bullshit. They have a chart that shows that your chances of living in poverty are a lot higher if you're a single parent, as if that really has anything to do with married gay couples, who by definition are two separate individuals together and not single.

I've long not completely understood why the religious right thinks bringing up the specter of unmarried mothers will somehow convince people that the solution is to ban marriage for the small percent of unmarried mothers who are in same-sex partnerships. The argument has always been some convoluted Martian logic, which you can see reproduced up there, which is that somehow the existence of same-sex marriage will cause people to think that you don't have to be in a heterosexual marriage to have kids and so they'll go buck wild, spreading children all over the place without taking care of them or whatever. Never mind that people already figured that out, and that the rise of single motherhood dates to back before most people had even heard of the concept of gay marriage. I truly did not get it.

But Zack Ford zeroes in specifically on the claim that marriage equality "diminishes the social pressures for husbands to remain with their wives and children", and suggests that there's an argument that's being hinted at but not stated directly: That your husband is going to use you for making children and then go off and marry a man. He notes that there's a long trend in the anti-gay community of trying to conflate single mothers with lesbian-headed households, and this is just an extension of that.

It's amazing how conservatives just assume everyone shares their shockingly misogynist worldview, particularly their assumption that no man would ever openly choose to be with a woman unless he had no other choice. (And vice versa, with the fear that same-sex marriage is giving women "permission" not to be married at all.) These kinds of arguments, no matter how much they try to confuse you by being obtuse and arguing everything through insinuation, never work unless you buy the premise that men and women will not be with each other unless they're forced to. You really do start to wonder if they think that most currently straight people are going to turn gay now that gay marriage is an option.

In the real world, of course, the growing social acceptance of gay people actually reduces the number of straight marriages that are blown up by one spouse choosing to live as gay. It's homophobia that causes people to get married, have kids, and struggle for years before the pressure of living a lie causes them to come out, divorce their spouse, and live as a gay person. Nowadays, you can come out in your teens-often earlier!-long before there's pressure to start dating, much less marry a person of the opposite sex.

This isn't just conjecture, but is backed up by the statistics. In red states, where there's more overt homophobia, there are a lot more same-sex couples raising children. That's because, despite gay couples adopting or having kids together, most gay parents still got their kids during a closeted period in their life.

For instance, "a big chunk of them are people who had children young, with opposite-sex partners, before they came out," Gates said. After coming out, they raised those children with a partner of the same sex, he explained.

That may be one reason that in some more conservative places not known for celebrating gays and lesbians, a striking percentage of same-sex couples are rearing children, Gates said. Among states, Mississippi has the highest percentage of gay or lesbian couples raising children - 26% - his analysis of census data found.

Though Salt Lake City has a high percentage of gay couples raising children, the actual number is still much smaller than in coastal hubs such as New York or Los Angeles, the data show.

The only way you could possibly think that legalizing gay marriage will make this more prevalent is if you think that huge percentages of currently straight couples will break up and go into same-sex marriages the second they get a chance. It's not uncommon for the religious right to raise the specter, particularly to women, that no one will want to be married to them if X happens. Threatening women with male infidelity or with the fear that men will reject marriage if there's other options available is a long-standing argument against women's sexual liberation, so it's not surprising that the anti-gay arguments are basically an extremely strained attempt to do the same thing.

Like Raw Story on Facebook

Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can't assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2's Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels - fresh nutritious bagels - to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg's food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a "cholent" or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless.

Full Story: Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

Full remarks by President Obama on Trayvon Martin

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release July 19, 2013

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON TRAYVON MARTIN

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:33 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there's going to obviously be a whole range of issues - immigration, economics, et cetera - we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week - the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they've dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they're going through, and it's remarkable how they've handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there's going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case - I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me - at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws - everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact - although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that's unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent - using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn't mean, though, that as a nation we can't do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm still bouncing around with my staff, so we're not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that's one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let's figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it - if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three - and this is a long-term project - we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed - I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn't mean we're in a post-racial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they're better than we are - they're better than we were - on these issues. And that's true in every community that I've visited all across the country.

And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we're becoming a more perfect union - not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

Thank you, guys.

END 1:52 P.M. EDT

Former DOJ official: Civil rights unit sent to mediate anti

The Department of Justice civil rights unit sent to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to mediate the anti-George Zimmerman protests has a history of putting racial advocacy ahead of its mandated duties, according to a former head of the unit.

"At CRS headquarters, we (meaning I) regularly had to warn or take corrective action against career employees for acting as advocates instead of mediators," Ondray Harris, the former director of the DOJ's Community Relations Service (CRS), told The Daily Caller. CRS was the unit deployed to Sanford in 2012 to oversee anti-Zimmerman protests.

"Some CRS employees come to the Agency with anti-law enforcement or anti- what they would call the 'white establishment' [attitudes]" added Harris, an African American who joined CRS during the administration of George W. Bush in 2007 and left in 2010.

As The Daily Caller previously revealed, CRS reported expenses related to its deployment in Sanford to help manage anti-Zimmerman protests between March and April 2012, including a high-profile rally headlined by civil rights activist Al Sharpton. CRS also facilitated a meeting between Sanford city officials and the activist group Dream Defenders, which campaigned last year for a criminal case against Zimmerman to be brought for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Dream Defenders also advocated for the removal of Sanford police chief Bill Lee, who was eventually fired. The meeting was convened to discuss changes to the Sanford Police Department.

"The mission of CRS is to provide violence prevention and conflict resolution services for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, or national origin," reads the mission statement of the agency, which was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "CRS is the only federal service mandated to help state and local government agencies, public and private organizations, and community groups resolve and prevent community racial conflicts through the use of mediation, conciliation, and other conflict resolution approaches."

But the problem with CRS, Harris said, is the conflict "between being mediators versus being advocates."

Tommy Battles, the regional director of the CRS' Southeast Region who deployed to Sanford in 2012, is "black, and very pro-black," said Harris.

"When I was nominated by President Bush to the Director position at CRS, Tommy Battles came to headquarters to meet me. In our introduction, he said, 'I want to see you do well because as a black man if you do well then I am doing well, and the whole race does well,'" Harris said. "I thought to myself: 'are you kidding me? There's no room for such racial favoritism here.' Eventually, I became even more concerned as Battles and others would openly share their extremely pro-minority [views] at the expense of the majority views. I felt such views compromised implementing the CRS mandate."

Teacher says she was fired for finding, extinguishing fire at daycare

In this week's sign that America is clearly wheezing its last ethical gasps, a teacher at a Florida daycare was sacked just hours after she found and extinguished a fire that was burning at the daycare facility.

Events transpired on Wednesday afternoon at Little Temples Childcare in the Jacksonville suburb of Arlington, reports WTEV.

During naptime, the teacher, Michelle Hammack, smelled something smoldering in an adjacent classroom. Turns out, it was chicken nuggets in an oven.

"I just leaned over and peeked around and there was a fire in the oven, and I ran in there and opened it to try to put it out, and the fire alarm started going off," Hammack narrated to the Jacksonville CBS affiliate.

The teacher then hurried back to her classroom to gather her napping charges and ferry them all outside.

Other teachers performed a head count outside. Hammack returned to the building to check for any stray kids.

"When I got to the third classroom by the kitchen," she said, "I could see that it was just a contained fire in the oven."

So, she claims, she put it out.

Mere hours later, the owner of Little Temples Childcare, Olga Rozhaov, sent the teacher packing.

"I fired her only because she left her room," Rozhaov said, adding that protocol strictly requires that a teacher to be with students at all times including when they are sleeping.

"It's not acceptable, and if anybody else does the same thing, I will fire again," the boss guaranteed. "I will fire them. No question."

Rozhaov did admit that Hammack may have prevented property damage, or worse.

Naturally, Hammack doesn't like the outcome.

"I didn't start the fire," she noted. "I put it out."

When firefighters arrived, they cleared away the smoke (which only took a few minutes) and deemed the daycare facility safe for habitation.

Apparently at the behest of a WTEV reporter, the local Department of Children and Families is investigating.

Follow Eric on Twitter and send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.

6 examples of why a restaurant is in trouble for hot waitresses wearing only ...

Restaurant chain Redneck Heaven has come under scrutiny in Lewisville, Texas over their waitresses clothing - or rather, non-clothing choices. The city council voted to ban the body paint costumes that were popular with the staff on theme days, reports KDFW.

Every so often the restaurant would advertise an "ABC" or "anything but clothing" day for their staff. The waitresses interpreted this in a number of different ways, a popular way being only using body paint to cover their breasts.

One offended resident, Catherine Holliday, said " We're quite shocked to see these young ladies weren't dressed. They had very scant bottoms on and their tops were painted. It's a restaurant that's between two family restaurants."

Male patrons of the establishment don't seem to mind, however. Local Steve Kinsella said, ""As long as the girls are ok with it, it's fine by me. No one is forcing them to do it. If they want to do it, they can do it. If they don't want to, they don't have to."

There are still two other Redneck Heaven locations where you might be able to catch some painted waitresses, but in the meantime here are six examples of what some of the waitresses wore on these ABC days.

(Photos via Redneck Heaven/ Facebook)

Click an image below for larger version.

Follow Sarah on Twitter

Mike Lee threatens 'every procedural mechanism,' including filibuster, to stop ...

On Friday's broadcast of Derek Hunter's Baltimore WBAL 1090AM radio program, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee made an appearance to promote his new book, " Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare." During that appearance, Lee let it be known he would be going all out to prevent President Barack Obama's 2010 health care reform law, otherwise known as Obamacare, from being funded.

In that appearance, Lee first attacked the Obama administration for its explanation as to why the Obamacare law was unpopular, for which it often blames the Republican Party.

"The nice way to respond to it is to say is that it's awfully convenient - awfully convenient that the law he designed, that he pushed through Congress as his signature legislative achievement is unpopular, not because it's bad, not because the American people don't like it, not because it's making health care cost go up and its unfair in the way it's being implemented - but because Republicans are criticizing it," Lee said. "That's a terribly convenient response. The less charitable way of describing that assertion is that that's absolutely ludicrous. That's one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. The White House ought to be ashamed of itself for making such an assertion."

Hunter asked Lee if he would go as far as to filibuster the upcoming continuing resolution that would fund the federal government if included funding for the health care law.

"I'll utilize every procedural mechanism at my disposal to do it," Lee said. "I generally don't signal in advance what procedural maneuvers exactly I'll use because it's usually not good strategy. But what I am saying is I will not vote for a continuing resolution that contains funding for further Obamacare implantation and enforcement. So far I have got, I don't know, 13 or 14 Senate Republicans who have joined me. I think a corresponding effort is starting to be kicked off in the House. And I expect these numbers to grow steadily as Americans realize the president has said he's not going to implement the law as written. If he's not going to implement the law, we shouldn't be forced to fund it."

Listen:

"It's not lost on me this won't necessarily be an easy or automatic thing," Lee added. "But what I am saying is when voters in all 50 states starting learning more about this effort, start learn more about what Obamacare is and how it's being implemented by this administration, they're going to want to do anything they can to stop it. They are certainly going to want elected officials in Washington, as many of us who were elected specifically with the charge to stop Obamacare, to do everything in their power to stop it. This is our last chance. This is our last effort to stop it. This is the last opportunity we're going to have to vote most likely on a continuing resolution before those Jan. 1, 2014 starting deadlines kick in. So we have to refuse to fund it now and the time for doing that is when the current continuing resolution expires on September 30."

Follow Jeff on Twitter

George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had A Gun

By Amanda MarcotteMonday, July 15, 2013 10:49 EDT

It's hard for me to post on the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial without just repeating what everyone else has said about racism, our screwed up court systems, the lack of regard for the lives of young black men. Absent racism, there would be no debate over who is the "thug" in this situation. We wouldn't have to know anything about the backgrounds of Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin to know that the "thug" is the guy who chases an innocent teenager down and provokes a fight with him for the hell of it, and then uses that as a pretext to murder him-and not the teenager who was only out to buy candy to eat while watching the game. But we do know more about the victim and his killer, and every step of the way, it's become clear that Zimmerman is the violent thug, and he and his meathead family are a bunch of simmering rage machines that have built up paranoid visions of the world to justify being hateful and, in Zimmerman's case for sure, violent.

And that's what I keep coming back to: With Zimmerman's history of violence, the fact that he had access to a gun and a right to concealed carry in the first place is beyond the pale. The gun industry knows that violent, paranoid people are a steady source of profits for them, and therefore they have lobbied hard to make sure that said people can continue to give them money without being impeded. If the Florida government wasn't in the thrall of gun manufacturers' remorseless pursuit of profits over human life, Trayvon Martin would be alive today. Here is some of Zimmerman's past that has been covered up in the racist bloviating from wingnuts over this case:

In July 2005, he was arrested for "resisting officer with violence." The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman's former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.

Under common sense gun regulation, Zimmerman would have permanently lost his right to concealed carry when he assaulted a cop. If not then, then when the state granted a restraining order. (His retaliatory restraining order is further evidence of his paranoid mind set that should be taken into consideration when evaluating this case.) If a case is serious enough that the state can force you into an alcohol education program, then it should be serious enough to take your gun away from you. If, as the gun lobby claims, they are only protecting the rights of responsible gun owners, people who have a colorful history of irresponsibility should absolutely not have the right to own guns.

What makes all this even more unsettling is that you look at this history, and you see a man who is being told, over and over again, that he gets to be a violent asshole and no one will do anything to stop him. They'll even make sure that he's free to strap a gun on again and pretend that he's roaming around in a war zone. The odds that a man like this will retire from a career of violence quietly are pretty low. Let's just hope that if he assaults or, god forbid, kills again, the heightened attention will make it much harder for him to get away with it next time.

Warning to trolls: I'm very low on patience today, so don't even bother. Take your racist garbage elsewhere.

Like Raw Story on Facebook

Retiring IRS lawyer implicates Obama appointee in testimony

Retiring IRS lawyer Carter C. Hull's testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in which he implicated an Obama appointee, will ensure that the IRS proceedings last through the summer, according to insiders close to the situation.

Hull has already fingered Obama-appointed IRS chief counsel William Wilkins and Washington-based IRS official Lois Lerner in his damning testimony.

"In April of 2010, I was assigned by my supervisor to work on two applications of tea party groups. In that same month, I became aware that a group of tea party applications were being held by EO determinations in Cincinnati," Hull testified in his opening statement before California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa's committee.

"It was my understanding that the applications assigned to me would be 'test cases' to provide guidance for those other applications. I was also told by my supervisor that I was to coordinate the review of the tea party applications that were assigned to Elizabeth Hofacre in Cincinnati," Hull testified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n2bRP6kVDQ (EMBED VIDEO)

As The Daily Caller previously reported, Hull instructed Hofacre's Cincinnati office, which oversaw audits of tax-exempt nonprofit groups, to target tea party groups and provided her a copy of a letter he wrote to a conservative group requesting additional information in an audit. Hull signed a May 12, 2010 letter to the Albuquerque Tea Party, grilling the group on the recent content of its newsletters and its website.

"I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull's influence or input," Hofacre told congressional investigators. Hofacre's testimony led Hull to be summoned to the committee.

Hull, 72, implicated the IRS Chief Counsel's office, headed by Obama appointee William J. Wilkins, and Lois Lerner, the embattled head of the IRS' exempt organizations office, in the IRS targeting scandal and also made clear that the targeting started in Washington, according to leaked interviews that Hull granted to the Oversight Committee in advance of Thursday's hearing.

"In April 2010, Mr. Hull was instructed to scrutinize certain Tea Party applications by one of his superiors in Washington. According to Mr. Hull, these applications were used as 'test' cases and assigned to him because of his expertise and because IRS leadership in Washington was 'trying to find out how [the IRS] should approach these organizations, and how [the IRS] should handle them,'" according to Oversight Committee documents.

"According to Hull's testimony, Ms. Lerner... gave an atypical instruction that the Tea Party applications undergo special scrutiny that included an uncommon multi-layer review that involved a top advisor to Lerner as well as the Chief Counsel's office," according to Oversight Committee documents.

In August 2012, the "Chief Counsel's office held a meeting with Mr. Hull, Ms. Lerner's senior advisor, and other Washington officials to discuss these test applications."

Hull's testimony set off a lightning storm of controversy amongst figures close to the case.

"This is one of the most extremely disturbing revelations yet," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents more than 40 tea party plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the IRS.

"It is now clear that the IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by President Obama in 2009, was involved in examining and reviewing applications from Tea Party groups - many that were basically shut out of the 2010 election process because of delays in handling of their applications. This development raises significant questions about what the White House knew and when. In a politically charged run-up to the 2010 election, why was one of President Obama's most trusted and partisan appointees involved in examining the applications for Tea Party groups? We look forward to tomorrow's testimony and further information about the origins of this unlawful and unconstitutional scheme that violated the First Amendment rights of our clients," Sekulow said.

Follow Patrick on Twitter

Jason Whitlock: Rap music an 'unapologetic accomplice' in Trayvon's death

In a pair of columns released Monday and Tuesday, Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock voiced his belief that rap music and its widespread use of the N-word were major factors in Trayvon Martin's death.

Whitlock, an African-American, certainly doesn't believe that rap and N-word use were the only things to blame.

"Although I believe the jury reached the only logical conclusion based on the trial, I'm highly disappointed Zimmerman was not held criminally responsible for following Martin, ignoring police instructions and shooting a 17-year-old kid after losing a fight his pursuit instigated," he wrote. "Zimmerman and the Sanford police force that initially bought Zimmerman's explanation profiled Martin."

But Whitlock wrote that the Sanford police and George Zimmerman "had an enthusiastic, unapologetic accomplice - N-word-addicted, gangsta rappers and the record companies that pay and promote them."

Whitlock heavily criticized rappers, specifically citing "the N-word-addicted rapper-turned-sports agent Jay-Z."

"They have branded young black boys and men within pop culture as criminal, violent and people to be feared. America is still a predominantly segregated society," he wrote. "We learn about each other through TV, the entertainment industry. Thug rappers and their employers are partially to blame for Zimmerman seeing a black kid in a hoodie and immediately thinking 'punk criminal.' The same group is also partially responsible for making young people think it's cooler to pose as a wannabe thug than a wannabe scholar."

He further criticized rap music in his Tuesday column: "The rap music industry, the record labels and the commercial artists preach a message to young black people that expressing the most unethical, intimidating, violent, divisive and classless behavior - characteristics necessary to survive incarceration - are success tools in America's free society."

He rejected the idea that widespread use of the N-word redefines it as something positive.

"This popular mantra is every bit as intellectually dishonest as the mantra that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, lynching and discrimination are issues that no longer affect modern American society."

Whitlock's sentiment toward the word runs counter to the feelings expressed by Rachel Jeantel on "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Monday.

The often contentious Whitlock has been on every side of race issues and has previously called the National Rifle Association " the new KKK" and has likened conservative columnist Thomas Sowell to the " house negro " character in the film "Django Unchained."

When reached for comment, Whitlock said, "My column speaks for itself."

Krauthammer: Holder will be 'humiliated' if he brings federal case against ...

On Tuesday's broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor," Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said it would be a major mistake for Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department to pursue legal action against George Zimmerman.

Watch:

"So, the mob demanded it. And the mob said, 'Let's have - let Trayvon have his day in court.' And there was an impartial jury," the Things That Matter author said.

"Is there any evidence, whatsoever, of racial animus or bias in the actual trial itself. If anything, the trial judge had some sympathy. I think a little more sympathy for the prosecution. So, nobody who - it was not in secret, it was open for the whole world to see. So, there is no case to be made, that this was an unfair process. We have the divine justice and human. And the best that we can do is what our system has. It has worked for two centuries. You have a presentation of the evidence on both sides and a verdict. And to the president's credit, he did say in his initial statement, 'A jury has spoken.' The only question is, will the mob that caused the trial in the first place now pressure the administration into a double-jeopardy prosecution of Zimmerman either on grounds of hate crime or civil rights. I think it will be a terrible mistake if the Department of Justice did. And I think that would be a success for the mob."

He said that, despite whatever political gains are made by going after Zimmerman, Holder would lose badly in court.

"Listening to what [Holder] said today at the NAACP Convention, I think he understands the politics and realities of this," Krauthammer said. "The legal realities of it, if he brings a federal case, he is not just going to lose but he will be humiliated. And I think he knows that. And that's why his speech today was very interesting. He deflected the issue of prosecuting Zimmerman. He spoke about investigating, which is a way of actually being able to delay this process until the temperature in the room has been lowered."

Malik Obama maintained close relationship with Libyan dictator Muammar ...

President Barack Obama's half-brother, Malik Obama, had a close relationship with Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi that continued from the 1980s until the dictator's death.

A photograph obtained by the Daily Caller shows Malik smiling with Gadhafi. Photos of Gadhafi from the time period appear to place the photo somewhere between 1987-1990, around the same time as the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing and the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, for both of which Libya was responsible.

Obama was a vocal supporter of the Libyan dictator and once interceded with his brother on Gadhafi's behalf during the Libyan civil war, according to an interview with the Daily Mail's Angella Johnson.

The fondness continued after Gadhafi's death. Obama dedicated his co-written book, " Barack Obama Sr. The Rise and Life of a True African Scholar " to Gadhafi, General Mahamat Nour of Chad, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

A previous photograph released by the Mail depicted Malik Obama and Gadhafi well past middle age, but the latest photograph appears to show a younger Malik Obama and raises new questions about the relationship of the president's half-brother with the state sponsor of terrorism. Obama, according to the Mail, met with Gadhafi "half a dozen times."

The relationship with Gadhafi also raises questions about how Malik Obama was permitted to work and travel within the United States, including working for companies that had government contracts.

Malik Obama was the best man at Barack Obama's wedding in 1992, but he was not the only member of the wedding party who had met with Gadhafi. Jeremiah Wright, spiritual adviser to Barack Obama and officiant at the Obamas' wedding, visited Tripoli in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan.

Wright bragged about his ties to Gadhafi in a 2007 interview with Jodi Kantor of the New York Times: "When his enemies find that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Gadhafi "with Farrakhan, a lot of [Obama's] Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

The Daily Caller has also uncovered Malik Obama's Twitter account. The president's half-brother defends Gadhafi and compares what Israel is doing to the Palestinians to what Gadhafi was doing to the Libyan people.

In July 6, 2011, Obama tweeted, "I oppose the attack on Libya and prefer/support a solution that involves negotiation, understanding and presentation of facts."

He continued in another two tweets: "As there are those who oppose and despise the leader of Libya so too are those who oppose and despite what Israel is doing to Palestinians.... We aught[sic] to apply standards evenly."

Malik Obama is the founder of a shady " charity," the Barack H. Obama Foundation. The Foundation has taken in over $250,000 but reported only $25,000 on its 990s. It does not appear to have done any of its stated charity work in Kenya. Although the Barack H. Obama Foundation operated illegally in the United States for several years, its application for non-profit status was rapidly approved by Lois Lerner the IRS official at the center of the scandal over targeting of conservative groups for abusive audits and delays.

Follow Charles on Twitter

Jimmy Carter: 'America no longer has a functioning democracy'

Former president Jimmy Carter condemned the effect U.S. intelligence programs had on U.S. moral authority in the wake of NSA revelations brought to light by leaker Edward Snowden, Der Spiegel reports.

"America has no functioning democracy," Carter said at a meeting of The Atlantic Bridge in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday.

Carter also claimed there was currently no reason for him to be "optimistic" about Egypt's internal conflicts and mused whether the standards The Carter Center applies to foreign elections could be fulfilled by U.S. elections, which he believes are plagued by confusing campaign rules and a lack of restrictions on free speech in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

The former president continued that democratic developments - fueled by sites such as Facebook and Twitter - might be damaged by the NSA revelations, essentially strangling emerging democratic revolutions in the cradle by casting doubt on the social media juggernauts' independent credibility.

Carter is a strident critic of President Barack Obama's anti-terror policies. In 2012, he penned a New York Times op-ed calling the U.S. human rights record "cruel and unusual," denouncing the Obama administration's drone strikes, indefinite detentions and warrantless wiretapping.

"At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," Carter wrote. "But instead of making the world safer, America's violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends."

Carter also voiced support for Snowden in June.

"He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible, but I think the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far," he told CNN. "I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial. I think the American people deserve to know what their Congress is doing."

Carter received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 to commemorate his "outstanding commitments" to human rights. Seven years later, Obama would receive the same prize - the Nobel Norwegian Committee decided to award it to him only 12 days after he assumed office in 2009.

Follow Katie on Twitter

Irate Ivy League professor calls God 'a white racist god' after Zimmerman verdict

In light of a Florida jury verdict finding George Zimmerman not guilty, a professor at an Ivy League university has now concluded that God is "a white racist god with a problem" who "is carrying a gun and stalking young black men."

The fulmination is part of an epic blog rant by Anthea Butler, an associate professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania and a frequent guest at media outlets including MSNBC and CNN.

In the diatribe, Butler cites a book she first read as a seminary student called Is God a White Racist? by William R. Jones. She found the book surprising then, but says she understands it now, particularly as she contemplates the death of Trayvon Martin, who died on February 26, 2012.

"God ain't good all of the time," Butler declares. "In fact, sometimes, God is not for us. As a black woman in an [sic] nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain't my god."

Butler is particularly upset at what she views as the conservative Christian conception of the Creator.

"Whatever makes them protected, safe, and secure, is worth it at the expense of the black and brown people they fear," she rages. "Their god is the god that wants to erase race."

Butler also complains about the Three-Fifths Compromise, which essentially treated slaves as three-fifths of a person, and which was part of the Constitution when it was originally ratified in 1789.

In 1865, almost 150 years ago, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, thus nullifying the notorious compromise.

"Religious conservatism of the 21st century is in bed with the prison industrial complex, the Koch brothers, the NRA-all while proclaiming that they are 'pro-life,'" Butler also claims. "They are anything but. They are the ones who thought that what George Zimmerman did was right."

Conservative groups targeted by the IRS reject the agency's new expedited ...

The law firm representing dozens of conservative groups targeted by the Internal Revenue Service announced Wednesday that its clients are rejecting the IRS's new expedited review process for 501(c)(4) applications.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) - which has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of 41 conservative groups targeted by the IRS - said its clients are rejecting the new process because it applies a standard that would require that groups spend at least 60 percent of their time and resources on social welfare promotion and no more than 40 percent on political activities.

Seven of ACLJ's clients rejected the process even though they would have qualified for expedited review and already have had applications pending for more than 645 days. One group has an application pending for 1,297 days.

According to ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow, the 60/40 standard the IRS would apply to expedite the applications is "deeply flawed" and not rooted in statutes or regulations.

In a letter to the Department of Justice in response to a notice about the "expedited process for recognition of exemption" Wednesday, Sekulow called the 60/40 standard "merely safe harbor provisions the IRS has crafted in response to the problems that have been created by its own admitted misconduct."

"We have been instructed by our clients to reject the IRS's offer for expedited review on the basis you have proposed," Sekulow wrote. "Respectfully, because these seven clients have been awaiting determination for years and have complied with all legitimate requests for additional information, we request that the IRS complete its review of their application and make a final determination immediately."

The IRS announced last month that it would offer an optional, faster option for the 501(c)(4) process with the 60/40 standard, as a way to reduce the application backlog.

"The IRS is committed to improving our tax-exempt review process," IRS Principal Deputy Commissioner Danny Werfel said in a statement. "This new streamlined option gives certain groups that have waited far too long a quick and clear path to get their status resolved."

The seven organizations that rejected the expedited process are the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots in Arizona, the Allen Area Patriots in Texas, the Laurens County Tea Party in South Carolina, the North East Tarrant Tea Party in Texas, the Myrtle Beach Tea Party in South Carolina, the Albuquerque Tea Party in New Mexico, and the Acadiana Patriots in Louisiana.

Of the 41 groups the ACLJ represents, 19 received tax-exempt status after long delays, 17 are still pending, and 5 withdrew their applications out of frustration. According to an ACLJ spokesman the IRS' criteria for expedited review of 501 (c)(4) applications only applied to the seven groups that rejected the offer.

Follow Caroline on Twitter

Judge says generation gap causing issues with cyber bullyng

And a top cop says parents must match their children's cyber skills to stay a step ahead of online predators.

A conference of law and education experts in Melbourne next week will be told judges and magistrates must be trained on technology to gain a better understanding of cyber bullying.

Judge Andrew Becroft, principal judge of the New Zealand Youth Court, said: "Cyber bullying is outside the experience of many in the justice system, some judges included.

"We have all been teenagers and have all witnessed bullying," he said.

"But growing up with different technology means many in the justice system have not been directly exposed to the pernicious nature of cyber bullying, and its potential to be spread worldwide.

"Technology is changing all the time and at a rate faster than our legislative capacity has kept up with."

Judge Becroft said he too had been ignorant of the problem.

"Most of us involved in youth justice are a generation removed from cyber bullying, and that's one of the challenges we face every day," he said.

"We must be trained to deal with the issues. We must do it. It is a non-negotiable part of our training."

The National Centre Against Bullying, Australian Federal Police and Victoria University's Sir Zelman Cowen Centre has organised the Bullying, Young People and the Law Symposium to help improve the safety of all Australians online.

Australian Federal Police Deputy Commissioner (operations) Michael Phelan, who will also speak at the two-day conference beginning on Thursday, urged parents to match their children's abilities online to ward off trolls and stalkers on social media.

"The digital divide between what children know and what their parents know can mean that we may be one step behind children and, subsequently, one step behind the offenders," he said.

It is estimated almost a third of young Australians have been bullied at least fortnightly.

wes.hosking@news.com.au

Durbin gets a Republican challenger in Doug Truax

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has a challenger for his 2014 re-election campaign.

Republican Doug Truax, a West Point graduate who now runs a strategic risk consulting firm, will officially announce his candidacy on Monday.

"At West Point, one of the first things they taught us is that you change battlefield strategies if they continually fail," Truax said in a statement. "Business owners and families also know this but amazingly, in Illinois and Washington, career politicians like Dick Durbin continue to make the same tax-and-spend policy decisions without regard to results."

Truax is a political neophyte. He is the co-owner and managing partner of Veritas Risk Services, LLC, a strategic risk consulting firm. Before that, he served as a Captain in the Army after graduating from West Point in 1992.

Durbin, the majority whip of the Senate, is well positioned for re-election, with $3.2 million in his campaign account, according to FEC filings in March. But the Truax campaign says it will try to woo a large coalition to help position him to win, focusing particularly on younger voters and not writing anyone off, no matter their party affiliation.

"I look forward to bringing a new energy and ultimately a new direction for the people of Illinois," Truax said in a statement.

Follow Alexis on Twitter

White House backs away from Trayvon Martin case

The White House's press secretary strongly signaled Tuesday that President Barack Obama will back out of the George Zimmerman controversy, amid peaceful outcry and a handful of violent protests that could damage his chance of winning back the House in 2014.

"The president does believe we should have an ongoing conversation about [race] in our communities and churches and in the public square," Carney said, pointedly excluding a White House role.

Instead of the talking about the shooting controversy - in which a Florida jury of six women acquitted the Hispanic neighborhood-watch volunteer of murder charges - Carney tried to shift the subject to the president's economic policies.

"Everything the president stands for has as its focus the need to expand the middle class, the need for us as a country to make sure that opportunity is available to all Americans. And that is the foundation of his economic agenda," he said. "That opportunity, if broadly shared, will empower this country and move it forward."

"Conversation is important, but it's in many ways equally important at the local and community and church level as it is at the national level," he said.

Carney declined repeated requests for further comments on the trial, merely directing reporters to the president's carefully worded statement released over the weekend.

"We could parse this a million ways ... [but] I'm not going to announce future speeches on this subject," he said.

The not-guilty verdict and subsequent protests raise the possibility that swing voters - especially suburban women who worry about crime - would disagree with Obama's role in the dispute.

However, Obama also needs a high turnout from African-Americans, many of whom are angry or dismayed at the not-guilty verdict.

African-American lobbies are pushing the Department of Justice to file new charges against Zimmerman.

So far, Obama's deputies have not announced whether they will file new charges.

Last March, Obama nationalized the Martin case prior to the 2012 election by declaring that "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

The jury in the Zimmerman trial consisted of six women.

Obama is trying to boost turnout by women in the 2014 election, partly by using shooting controversies to demand demand gun-control laws that will be opposed by the GOP. In turn, the inevitable GOP opposition can be used to portray the GOP as a threat to suburban peace.

One option for Obama's aides is to portray the shooting and resulting verdict as a caused by racial discrimination, justifying large-scale federal intervention in Americans' social lives, workplaces and education centers.

Attorney General Eric Holder pitched that claim Monday.

The president has "long opposed racial profiling," Carney said Tuesday.

Carney's pivot away from the trial and toward the economy came the same day that Obama met with Spanish-language TV stations to boost a controversial rewrite of the nation's immigration laws.

Judge says generation gap causing issues with cyber bullyng

And a top cop says parents must match their children's cyber skills to stay a step ahead of online predators.

A conference of law and education experts in Melbourne next week will be told judges and magistrates must be trained on technology to gain a better understanding of cyber bullying.

Judge Andrew Becroft, principal judge of the New Zealand Youth Court, said: "Cyber bullying is outside the experience of many in the justice system, some judges included.

"We have all been teenagers and have all witnessed bullying," he said.

"But growing up with different technology means many in the justice system have not been directly exposed to the pernicious nature of cyber bullying, and its potential to be spread worldwide.

"Technology is changing all the time and at a rate faster than our legislative capacity has kept up with."

Judge Becroft said he too had been ignorant of the problem.

"Most of us involved in youth justice are a generation removed from cyber bullying, and that's one of the challenges we face every day," he said.

"We must be trained to deal with the issues. We must do it. It is a non-negotiable part of our training."

The National Centre Against Bullying, Australian Federal Police and Victoria University's Sir Zelman Cowen Centre has organised the Bullying, Young People and the Law Symposium to help improve the safety of all Australians online.

Australian Federal Police Deputy Commissioner (operations) Michael Phelan, who will also speak at the two-day conference beginning on Thursday, urged parents to match their children's abilities online to ward off trolls and stalkers on social media.

"The digital divide between what children know and what their parents know can mean that we may be one step behind children and, subsequently, one step behind the offenders," he said.

It is estimated almost a third of young Australians have been bullied at least fortnightly.

wes.hosking@news.com.au

Green energy companies accused of ripping off poor, minority customers

Daily Caller News Foundation

Green power companies supplying energy to District of Columbia and Maryland residents are under scrutiny for allegedly luring customers with promises of cheaper monthly energy bills - then jacking up the prices.

Complaints against green energy companies delivering power to D.C. and Maryland residents are on the rise, The Washington Post reports.

The D.C. Office of the People's Counsel has recorded 145 consumer complaints against seven green power providers this year. Approximately 75 percent of those complaints come from wards that are overwhelmingly minority and have high poverty rates. According to the OPC, many people filing complaints are senior citizens.

"Clearly, the problem is wider than just one provider," Sandra Mattavous-Frye, the people's counsel, told the Post. "This is a big issue. There should be an industry-wide investigation."

Many of those complaints - 29 this year - are against a company called Starion Energy, which supplies power in D.C. and eight eastern states. One of Starion's customers, Lisa Ford, was promised a monthly electric bill cut in half after she switched over to the company.

However, that's not what happened to Ford's bills - they increased from $96 per month in her first bill to $149 per month by her third.

"They lied to me - without a shadow of a doubt," said Ford, who lives in subsidized housing and makes around $23,000 per year.

The Post notes that many other customers have the same complaints about Starion: "Instead, their bills have increased - some by more than 50 percent, according to their complaints. Consumers also have alleged deceptive practices, including company representatives failing to disclose billing and cancellation terms in addition to rogue sales tactics."

In May, the D.C. Public Service Commission launched an investigation into Starion's business practices.

Maryland residents are also complaining about green energy suppliers. The Maryland Public Service Commission received 206 complaints from customers against three green energy suppliers. Complaints have skyrocketed since last year when MPUC got 119 and got only 51 complaints in 2011.

"It's an ongoing problem, particularly with misleading or deceptive marketing tactics," Theresa Czarski, deputy people's counsel for Maryland, told the Post. "There's constant stuff going on with these suppliers."

Complaints against Starion stood at a whopping 175 this year, up from only 9 in 2011.

"We don't tolerate any unethical business practices," Robert Bassett, compliance manager at Starion. "And we don't market with a promise of any guaranteed savings. We don't use the word 'discount.' " He declined to discuss Ford's complaint or any other individual's.

Basset told the Post that "there are measures in place to ensure that representatives don't sell something they can't deliver."

Follow Michael on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallrnewsfoundation.org.