ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

FBI Arrests White Supremacist Blogger Hal Turner For Threatening To Kill Federal Judges

By Amanda Terkel on Jun 24, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Hal Turner Today, FBI agents went to the New Jersey home of white supremacist blogger/radio host Hal Turner and arrested him “on a federal complaint filed in Chicago alleging that he made internet postings threatening to assault and murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago in retaliation for their recent ruling upholding handgun bans in Chicago and a suburb,” according to a statement released by the Justice Department. A summary of Turner’s dangerous tirade against the judges:

Internet postings on June 2 and 3 proclaimed “outrage” over the June 2, 2009, handgun decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, further stating, among other things: “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” The postings included photographs, phone numbers, work address and room numbers of these judges, along with a photo of the building in which they work and a map of its location.

Turner’s posts also “referred to the murder of the mother and husband of Chicago-based federal Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow in February 2005,” saying, “Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court didn’t get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed.” In the Justice Department statement, U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald — who announced the charges — said, “We take threats to federal judges very seriously. Period.”

Turner is already in trouble with the law. Earlier this month, he turned himself in to the Connecticut State Police on charges of “inciting violence” against three state officials. He urged his audience to “take up arms” because he was reportedly “angry over legislation that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches in Connecticut more control over their parish’s finances.” Turner’s next court appearance in this case is on July 14.

As the Nation has pointed out, Turner has ties to Fox News’ Sean Hannity. In fact, Hannity has “offered his top-rated radio show as a regular forum for Turner’s occasionally racist, always over-the-top rants.” Hannity would also reportedly offer Turner “encouragement” to overcome his cocaine habit and “homosexual leanings.”

Turner’s arrest comes after two major tragedies put the spotlight on the dangers of right-wing extremism: the Holocaust Museum shooting by white supremacist James von Brunn and the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.

Update

In 2008, Hannity tried to claim that he had never heard of Turner, but eventually said that he had “banned” him from his show 10 years ago.

Related Posts

Climate Progress

U.S. Open at Bethpage Black hit by “global warming type” of record rainfall — Tiger Woods falls victim to a bad draw and bad putting

By Joe Romm on Jun 24, 2009 at 8:07 pm

They called this year’s U.S. Open “Bathpage.”

And yes, Tiger Woods lost, even though I called him an “all-climate player” after he won “the brown British Open” at drought-stricken Royal Liverpool in 2006 and the “Hottest Major of All Time.” In fact, I had predicted “No doubt he’ll some day win the ‘wettest major of all time,’ too” — but a bad draw and bad putting thwarted him, as I’ll discuss at the end.

And this was a bath.  As Newsday reported Thursday evening about the rainsoaked first day,

The golf-hating storm system that soaked the U.S. Open tournament in Farmingdale Thursday broke records for the date in Long Island and New York City, continuing a streak that may make this one of the wettest Junes on record, according to the National Weather Service….

“If this keeps up, New York City could see its rainiest June”….

A weather station at Long Island MacArthur Airport recorded 1.53 inches by 8 p.m., beating its previous record of 1.44 inches.

The 2.26 inches that fell at Kennedy Airport shattered the record of 1.49 inches set in 1972.

I’m going to borrow and modify a term from the scientific literature and call this a “global-warming-type” deluge — see Must-have PPT: The “global-change-type drought” and the future of extreme weather.  After all, this type of extreme downpour is precisely what climate science projects would happen when you put more water vapor into the air.  And it is precisely what major peer-reviewed studies have shown the United States has been experiencing in the past few decades (see Why the “never seen before” Fargo flooding is just what you’d expect from global warming, as Obama warns):

Read more

Climate Progress

Green Groups Draw A Line In The Sand On Climate Bill, But Stand On Both Sides

By Brad Johnson on Jun 24, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Waxman-Markey supportersAs the House of Representatives nears a landmark vote on green economy legislation this Friday, some environmental organizations are staking hard positions — both for and against its passage. Although most national environmental groups are calling on Congress to “strengthen and pass” the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), a few groups are going farther. Most notably, the League of Conservation Voters announced Tuesday it would withhold its influential endorsements from any member who votes against the “historic” Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation:

In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecedented decision that we will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this historic bill.

In contrast, Friends of the Earth has announced its opposition to the bill, arguing that the support it has received from companies like Duke Energy and Shell Oil has come at too great a price to the environment and the American people:

There’s a simple reason polluting and irresponsible corporations support the Waxman-Markey bill: It showers them with hundreds of billions of dollars, but doesn’t require them to reduce pollution fast enough to avoid devastating climate change impacts. Worse, the bill guts the EPA’s preexisting authority to use the Clean Air Act to reduce this pollution. That means the bill is actually counterproductive — enacting it into law would be a step backward. What we need from Congress is much stronger legislation that puts us on a path to the clean energy future President Obama talked about during his campaign.

At Open Left, progressive blogger Chris Bowers argues that LCV drew its line in the sand in the wrong place. “LCV could have made the strengthening amendments the line in the sand,” Bowers explains, but its position “could put the LCV in a position where it works against members of Congress who voted to strengthen the bill” and voted against final passage if they “feel it is too weak.”

Center for American Progress John Podesta indirectly responded to Friends of the Earth — which is running ads on progressive and environmental websites — when he called on progressives to support this “imperfect” bill, which he believes still represents a dramatic improvement from the status quo.

Politics

Rep. Akin disses McCain: ‘I don’t know that McCain is that influential’ in the GOP.

By Ali Frick on Jun 24, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Ever since Iran’s disputed presidential elections this month, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been a ubiquitous presence on TV, slamming President Obama’s response to the crisis and trying to pump up his own profile. This morning on C-Span’s Washington Journal, a caller asked Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) why anyone should listen to McCain. Akin suggested that the GOP has already tuned him out:

CALLER: Why is [McCain] considered a leader? … Why is his point of view so important, and why should Obama listen to him? [...]

AKIN: I don’t know that McCain is that influential within the Republican Party per se.

Watch it:

Yesterday, a reporter asked President Obama whether McCain’s criticisms of his handling of the Iran situation had “influenced” him at all. “What do you think?” Obama replied:

I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues, and I think that all of us share a belief that we want justice to prevail. But only I’m the President of the United States, and I’ve got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries.

Related Posts

Economy

Chamber Of Commerce: We Only Like Voting When It Suits Our Purposes

By Pat Garofalo on Jun 24, 2009 at 6:45 pm

voteLast week, the Chamber of Commerce announced that it will “vigorously oppose” a new consumer protection agency proposed as part of the Obama administration’s regulatory reform package. But that’s evidently not the only way in which the Chamber is out to influence the debate over the changes facing Wall Street.

Yesterday, the Chamber laid out its opposition to a change — backed by the administration and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) — that would allow shareholders to vote on their company’s executive compensation practices, so called “say on pay”:

Opponents of an effort to give shareholders greater rights are centering their attacks on organized labor, arguing that unions are pushing such proposals to bolster their ranks and boost their declining pension funds.

“Big labor unions are trying to achieve at the board table what they cannot achieve at the negotiating table, under the guise of shareholder protection,” said David Hirchsmann, president of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

So the Chamber opposes the Employee Free Choice Act because it wants to “save the secret ballot,” while also opposing “say on pay,” which would guarantee that shareholders can hold a non-binding vote on their company’s executive pay packages. Isn’t it convenient that the Chamber only thinks voting is important when Big Business can set the rules?

But “say on pay” is really about injecting some sanity back into corporate governance. As Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, “[say on pay] has already become the norm for several of our major trading partners.” In two of those countries — Great Britain and Australia — CEO pay “grew 2.4 percent and 25.3 percent, respectively, from 2002 through 2006, while pay in the United States soared 59.9 percent in the same period.”

Some companies in the U.S., including Aflac Co., voluntarily undertake such votes already. “We want people to look at us and say, ‘Here’s a company that will even let you vote!’” said Aflac CEO Daniel Amos. “It’s symbolic, but it’s an important symbol.”

And that’s just the thing: the vote is non-binding, leading some to say that it doesn’t go far enough toward reining in Wall Street excess. As Dean Baker explained:

The current rules allow management insiders to make out like bandits at the expense of shareholders and other stakeholders. This is why clowns get paid tens of millions to run their companies into the ground in the US…Obama’s proposals do not go nearly far enough in taking back power from the insiders. We should have binding shareholder votes on compensation in which unreturned proxies don’t count.

So in the end, “say on pay” is simply an attempt to get some sense of balance back into corporate governance, and to start holding executives accountable to someone other than themselves.

Related Posts

Politics

OMB advises veto of defense authorization if it contains F-22 funding.

By Ali Frick on Jun 24, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Last week, the House Armed Services Committee reinstated funding for the F-22, over the objections of the Pentagon and the White House, by eliminating funding for nuclear waste cleanup. (Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA] has introduced an amendment eliminating the money for the F-22.) Today, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of Administrative Policy recommending a veto if the bill contains the F-22 funding:

F-22 Advance Procurement: The Administration strongly objects to the provisions in the bill authorizing $369 million in advanced procurement funds for F-22s in FY 2011. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments suggests that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements. If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

This afternoon on MSNBC, VoteVets Chairman Jon Soltz debated Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), who proclaimed, “We absolutely need 381 of these planes, and not 187.” Soltz called the claim “ridiculous,” and argued that military funds should be spent on troops on the ground:

It’s about how we spend our money. The Congressman cares about the Lockheed Martin stock price, and I care about the men and women who fight on the ground. And this weapon system does nothing for us.

Watch it:

Health

Rep. Paul Ryan Claims The Public Plan Won’t Pay Its Employees

By Igor Volsky on Jun 24, 2009 at 5:30 pm

As new polls show increasing support for a new health insurance option, Republicans are inventing new reasons to oppose what has quickly become the centerpiece of the health care reform debate. Here is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on CNBC’s Squawk Box explaining that a public health insurance option won’t be able to compete with private insurers because it will not pay its staffers. Presumably, Ryan thinks the employees who administer the public plan will have to work for free:

It’s impossible to have a level playing field with a public plan. Like I always say, it’s like my seven year old’s daughter lemonade stand competing against McDonalds. There is no way it’s a level playing field. The public plan doesn’t pay taxes, the public plan doesn’t have to account for payroll or benefits for its employees. The public plan gets to pay Medicare rates, which for hospitals is 30% below average and for doctors is 20% below average. So it’s a stacked deck and what ends up happening is that the public plan eventually crowds out the private plans and everybody goes on the public plan and you, voila, eventually have a government takeover of our health care system.

Watch it:

Presumably a public health care plan will have to pay and manage its employees’ benefit plans, just like Medicare does today. Moreover, private plans will play an important role within any framework of public/private competition, they just won’t maintain their present monopoly on coverage — something Ryan’s health care bill cheerfully extends. And while Democrats have detailed the various ways in which a public plan can, in fact, compete fairly with private plans; they have not denied it the right to use its inherent advantages — i.e. lower administrative rates, ability to use Medicare-like prices — to charge lower premiums to its consumers. After all that’s how McDonalds — which uses its fast food market power and other efficiencies to secure cheaper prices with providers and then passes on those rates to customers — is able to out compete his daughter’s lemonade stand.

If we’re outlawing the public plan, should we also ban McDonalds?

Yglesias

Some Health Care Reports

By Matthew Yglesias on Jun 24, 2009 at 5:26 pm

health_reform_feature-1

We’ve had three interesting health care papers produced at CAP over the past couple of days that I wanted to highlight. First, David Balto writes about the possibility of using anti-trust laws to eliminate barriers to generic drug competition:

Stopping these types of anticompetitive conduct could not be a greater priority for the Obama administration’s antitrust enforcers. With more than $60 billion in drugs scheduled to go “off patent” during the remainder of the President’s first term, stopping anticompetitive conduct in the pharmaceutical industry is crucial to controlling health care costs. If antitrust is a “consumer welfare prescription,” then our health care system is certainly in need of a prescription for an added dose of enforcement in pharmaceutical markets.

Next, David Cutler and Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin write about saving over $1 trillion by reforming health care.

And last, Ellen-Marie Whelan and Judy Feder on transforming the health payment system so that we pay providers to make people healthier rather than just paying them to do stuff.

Politics

TP Editor Faiz Shakir discusses Sanford on MSNBC.

By Ali Frick on Jun 24, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Soon after Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) admitted that he had lied to his staff and flown to Argentina for a rendezvous with his mistress, ThinkProgress Editor-in-Chief Faiz Shakir discussed Sanford’s political fortunes on MSNBC. Faiz pointed out that Sanford’s affair is hardly his worst sin:

I don’t want him to resign because of the affair. I think he should get kicked out of office because he’s been a terrible governor for the state. Their unemployment rate is at its highest rate ever. He’s bankrupted the state. He’s been fighting the Obama administration over unemployment money that his constituents desperately need. So I think on the merits, he’s been a horrible governor.

Faiz also reminded hosts David Shuster and Tamron Hall of Sanford’s own characterization of lying as “the biggest harm…to the democratic system.” Watch it:

After the segment, Hall said Faiz “made a great point” about Sanford’s past statements. “When people can use your own words, and you’ve criticized people in that same position, that bites I think more than anything any other critic or analyst can say about you,” Hall said.

Yglesias

The South’s Folly

By Matthew Yglesias on Jun 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Does he have the votes?

Does he have the votes?

I’ve been listening to David Blight’s lectures for his Yale course on The Civil War and Reconstruction. And I find myself continually compelled to think about the political situation in late 1860 through the ahistorical lens of today’s political controversies. After all, if Barack Obama with a popular majority and 59 Democratic Senators can’t get a climate change bill through the Senate, then what kind of anti-slavery legislative agenda would Abraham Lincoln have been able to drive through congress had the South not seceded? The Republicans were committed to excluding slavery from the territories, but perhaps slave state Senators could have just dealt with this through ceaseless filibustering. It was only the withdrawal of the Confederate members from Congress that gave the GOP the majorities it needed to pass its agenda.

Right?

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up