ThinkProgress Logo

NEWS FLASH

Ellen Gives Obama A Standing Ovation For Endorsing Marriage Equality | Ellen DeGeneres applauded President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality with a standing ovation during her daytime talk show on Wednesday. “What an amazing day for our country. President Obama just came out in support of same-sex marriage,” DeGeneres, who is married to her partner Portia de Rossi, announced. She added: “Wow! Wow! There have been moments in history when someone has had the courage to stand up for what they believe in and that one action changes everything. And I hope this is one of those times.Mr. President, to you I say, thank you, very very much. Thank you!” Watch it:



Ellen Deems Obama ‘Brave’ For Gay Marriage Support

NEWS FLASH

Romney Abolished Massachusetts LGBT Anti-Bullying Commission | As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney refused to fund the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, ultimately abolishing it. The group was created in 1992 to address alarmingly high rates of bullying and suicide among gay and lesbian teens. In 2005, Romney vetoed a $100,000 increase in the commission’s budget, a decision overturned by the legislature. After the group lent its name to a gay pride parade in 2006, Romney threatened to end it entirely, expressing concerns about the parade’s indecency and inclusion of the transgender community. Ultimately, when Romney tried to change the focus of the group to not be LGBT-specific, the legislature created its own commission and the governor’s dissolved. Combined with evidence that Romney was an anti-gay bully in high school, it seems that there is at least one position on which he’s been consistent throughout his life: harassing the LGBT community.

Economy

Arizona The Latest State To Use Foreclosure Settlement Funds To Balance Budget

Photo by flickr user gilsonrome

Since the $25 billion foreclosure fraud settlement was forged between most of the nation’s attorneys general and the biggest banks, several states have taken a portion of the money they were allotted — which was intended to go towards housing relief — and used it for other items in their budgets.

Arizona recently became the latest state to pull such shenanigans, diverting $50 million of its share of the settlement to balance its state budget:

At issue is the decision of the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer to tap $50 million from the $97.7 million the state received as part of its settlement with five mortgage-lending firms. They said they needed the money from the national mortgage settlement to balance the state budget. Initially, the intent was to use the money for prison construction. [...]

The money comes from a settlement [Arizona Attorney General Tom] Horne’s office negotiated in February with five lenders, and it is intended to provide relief to people affected by the foreclosure crisis as well as to prevent poor lending practices.

There’s a lot of pressure on the budget,” said Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin to justify the move. But as Mark Ladov and Meghna Philip of the Brennan Center for Justice noted, that money could do a lot of good in a state that has been pounded by the housing crisis:

The final state budget sweeps $50 million from the foreclosure settlement into the state’s general fund. This is despite the fact that Arizona posted the highest foreclosure rate in the nation in March, with an astonishing one out of every 300 housing units receiving a foreclosure notice…The Arizona Housing Alliance estimates that $50 million could provide 75,000 troubled homeowners with housing counseling and 10,000 homeowners with legal assistance. That investment would more than pay for itself by strengthening communities, boosting property values and helping to restore the state’s economic health.

Instead, Arizona, like several other states, will simply siphon the money elsewhere, leaving homeowners to continue struggling on their own.

Climate Progress

Shortsighted Republicans Eliminate International Climate Aid Funding. Again.

by Rebecca Lefton

The most anti-environmental House of Representatives in history is at it again.

Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee passed the 2013 foreign operations budget, which for a second year in a row cut entire programs crucial for helping developing countries address climate change impacts and advance on a low-emission economic trajectory.

The conservative belief that cutting international climate investments will solve national budget and debt problems simply makes the problem more expensive for us down the road. These cuts are bad for our national security, risk our international credibility, and endanger our planet and future generations.

So what does the House bill do?

  • The World Bank multilateral Climate Investment Funds that the George W. Bush administration established — consisting of the Strategic Climate Fund, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Forest Investment Program — are completely absent. That’s bad financial investment policy. The Clean Technology Fund, which helps to scale up clean energy technology in large-emitting developing countries, leverages around $8 in co-financing from multilateral development banks, governments, and the private sector for every $1 invested.
  • Funding for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body of scientists that studies the risk of human-induced climate change — is eliminated.
  • USAID’s operating expenses are cut 5 percent below FY 2012 enacted levels.
  • The Global Environment Facility, the main funder of international global warming projects, was cut to $64.7 million. In 2012 President Obama requested $143.7 million for the fund.

As the Center for American Progress has recommended, directing a mix of public and private resources to international climate finance will be a cost-effective way to fulfill our global emissions reductions pledges.  The only way to achieve our goals for climate stabilization is to help developing countries grow in a more sustainable way by using lower-carbon or zero-carbon energy sources.

International climate funding also creates opportunities for investments by U.S. companies that deliver the programs that capture these pollution reductions.

These cuts put the U.S. in a dangerous position, and they reflect a paralyzing ideological divide among parties. Indiana Senator Dick Lugar — a conservative who worked across party lines to address climate change — recently lamented the way his party is attacking the issue. In a statement after his defeat to a climate-denying Tea Partier, Lugar warned:

“I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change….Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.”

Senator Lugar was an original sponsor of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act supporting debt-for-nature swaps that allow developing countries to relieve debt owed to the United States by conserving and protecting forests.

Meanwhile, other countries are stepping up their international climate aid. Rather than having conversations about whether to pay for international climate aid at all, other world leaders are discussing about how to ramp up their commitments.

It’s now up to the Senate to help get the budget on the right path by restoring our international financial commitment to combating climate change.

Rebecca Lefton is a Policy Analyst with the International Climate Team at the Center for American Progress

Security

Poll: Americans Support Cuts To Military Spending

The $150 Million F-22 Raptor

The defense budget has emerged as one of the most hotly debated congressional issues this week. Disagreements over a $5 billion missile defense site — Republicans say the facility is necessary but Democrats, along with the Pentagon, report the project is unnecessary — was eventually backed by the House Armed Services Committee under Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon’s (R-CA) chairmanship. And in the presidential race, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, if elected, would increase military spending $2.1 trillion and hasn’t said how he would pay for it.

While House Republicans and the Romney campaign are eager to preserve, if not expand, the Pentagon’s budget, new polling data shows that Americans underestimate the size of the defense budget and, after seeing information on the size of defense spending, endorse defense spending cuts.

The poll, conducted by the Center for Public integrity, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) and the Stimson Center finds that when shown the discretionary budget for national defense alongside the discretionary budgets for education, veterans’ benefits, homeland security and various other spending areas, 65 percent of respondents found Defense spending to be more than what they had expected. Overall, respondents would cut the budget by 18 percent. Republicans cut an average of 12 percent and Democrats 22 percent.

The respondents’ high support for cutting the defense budget might be explained by the presentation of discretionary defense spending alongside other budget items. “This suggests that Americans generally underestimate the size of the defense budget and that when they receive balanced information about its size they are more likely to cut it to reduce the deficit,” said Steven Kull, director of PPC.

By a large percentage, the poll showed that Americans favored cutting the budget for nuclear weapons (27 percent) but the budget for existing ground forces was picked by respondents for the biggest cuts in dollar terms, $36.2 billion in average cuts or 23 percent.

While the Romney campaign and the GOP-controlled House Armed Services Committee appear intent on protecting existing military spending and introducing new projects for funding — whether the Pentagon asks for it or not — the U.S. public is firmly opposed to the current defense spending levels.

LGBT

Rep. Steny Hoyer Comes Out For Marriage Equality

Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is adding his voice to the growing chorus of lawmakers endorsing marriage equality following President Obama’s historic declaration that gay and lesbian couples should have the freedom to marry. “I have believed that the phrase ‘civil union’ was an appropriate definition of a relationship that is both different and the same between two people of the same sex. And I have believed strongly that such couples must be treated equally under the law,” he says:

Because I believe that equal treatment is a central tenet of our nation, I believe that extending the definition of marriage to committed relationships between two people, irrespective of their sex, is the right thing to do and will not, in any way, undermine the institution of marriage so important to our society nor impose a threat to any individual marriage. It will, however, extend the respect due to every one of our fellow citizens that we would want for ourselves and our children.

Since Obama announced his support on Wednesday, Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Harry Reid (D-NV) have also backed the LGBT community and the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee announced that it will take up the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) on June 12.

LGBT

North Carolina County Commissioner Eager To Strip Domestic Partner Benefits

Bill James (R)

Mecklenburg County Commissioner Bill James (R) is wasting no time in applying North Carolina’s newly passed Amendment One to the laws in his community. Noting that the measure bans any form of same-sex union recognition, James fired off an email to County Manager Harry Jones yesterday inquiring when they could begin stripping couples’ domestic partner benefits:

Since Amendment One has passed when will we get a memo or something that outlines what changes we need to make to our health plan to be in compliance? I recall when the Democrats on the Commission forced the issue and added these benefits for homosexuals that a number of legal experts said it was illegal then – including the City attorney. Now that Amendment one has passed it obviously is illegal to offer this benefit as there is now only one ‘domestic legal union’ recognized in the state.

James seems only to be concerned with the benefits for “homosexuals,” but Amendment One bans all domestic partnerships, so any benefits going to straight couples would have to be reevaluated as well. His email makes it clear, however, that his support for the measure was motivated entirely by his desire to discriminate against the gay community.

Jones responded that once the county’s legal and human resources staffs have completed their evaluation of the Amendment’s impact, they will brief James and the rest of the commissioners.

Security

Gen. Dempsey On Military Anti-Islam Class: ‘Totally Objectionable, Against Our Values’

The U.S.’s top military officer today delivered an extraordinary repudiation of a class taught as the U.S. military’s Joint Forces Staff College. The course, “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism,” used apocalyptic rhetoric and cast Islam as a “barbaric ideology,” employing numerous anti-Muslim tropes. For example, the class taught the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary” in a “total war” against Muslims.

At a press conference today, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey explained how the materials taught in the class were brought to his attention and expressed a harsh criticism of them. He said:

DEMPSEY: As you know, I’ve made an inquiry into a particular course that was brought to my attention by one of the students because he was concerned that it was objectionable and that it was counter to our values — you know, our appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness. And the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. It’s totally objectionable.

And so we are looking at how that course was approved, what motivated the individual to adopt that — it was an elective, but what motivated that elective for being part of the curriculum. And we are looking across the institutions that provide our professional military education to make sure there’s nothing like that out there.

It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound. This wasn’t about pushing back on liberal thought; this was objectionable, academically irresponsible.

Watch the video:

As Dempsey mentioned, he ordered an investigation of the class upon recognizing just how “objectionable” the material therein was. The examination of other teaching materials might find a good place to start by looking into Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, who facilitated the class, remains, for the moment, in his position at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.

Update

This post originally said Lt. Col. Dooley created the slides and delivered the lectures in question. ThinkProgress has since learned Dooley only facilitated the class.

Justice

Ten Most Disturbing Anti-Latino Practices Described By DOJ’s Lawsuit Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Earlier today, the Department of Justice filed a formal legal complaint against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) alleging widespread constitutional violations and lawless mistreatment of Latinos. According to the complaint, Arpaio and his staff engaged in widespread, violent and demeaning mistreatment of Latino residents of Maricopa County, often targeting individuals solely because of their race:

  1. Forcing Women To Sleep In Their Own Menstrual Blood: In Arpaio’s jails, “female Latina LEP prisoners have been denied basic sanitary items. In some instances, female Latina LEP prisoners have been forced to remain with sheets or pants soiled from menstruation because of MCSO’s failure to ensure that detention officers provide language assistance in such circumstances.”
  2. Assaulting Pregnant Women: “[A]n MCSO officer stopped a Latina woman – a citizen of the United States and five months pregnant at the time – as she pulled into her driveway. After she exited her car, the officer then insisted that she sit on the hood of the car. When she refused, the officer grabbed her arms, pulled them behind her back, and slammed her, stomach first, into the vehicle three times. He then dragged her to the patrol car and shoved her into the backseat. He left her in the patrol car for approximately 30 minutes without air conditioning. The MCSO officer ultimately issued a citation for failure to provide identification.”
  3. Stalking Latina Women: “In another instance, during a crime suppression operation, two MCSO officers followed a Latina woman, a citizen of the United States, for a quarter of a mile to her home. The officers did not turn on their emergency lights, but insisted that the woman remain in her car when she attempted to exit the car and enter her home. The officers’ stated reasons for approaching the woman was a non-functioning license plate light. When the woman attempted to enter her home, the officers used force to take her to the ground, kneed her in the back, and handcuffed her. The woman was then taken to an MCSO substation, cited for ‘disorderly conduct,’ and returned home. The disorderly conduct citation was subsequently dismissed.”
  4. Criminalizing Being A Latino: “During raids, [Arpaio's Criminal Enforcement Squad] typically seizes all Latinos present, whether they are listed on the warrant or not. For example, in one raid CES had a search warrant for 67 people, yet 109 people were detained. Fifty-nine people were arrested and 50 held for several hours before they were released. Those detained, but not on the warrant, were seized because they were Latino and present at the time of the raid. No legal justification existed for their detention.”
  5. Criminalizing Living Next To The Wrong People: “[D]uring a raid of a house suspected of containing human smugglers and their victims . . . officers went to an adjacent house, which was occupied by a Latino family. The officers entered the adjacent house and searched it, without a warrant and without the residents’ knowing consent. Although they found no evidence of criminal activity, after the search was over, the officers zip-tied the residents, a Latino man, a legal permanent resident of the United States, and his 12-year-old Latino son, a citizen of the United States, and required them to sit on the sidewalk for more than one hour, along with approximately 10 persons who had been seized from the target house, before being released.”
  6. Ignoring Rape: Because of Arpaio’s obsessive focus on “low-level immigration offenses” his officers failed “to adequately respond to reports of sexual violence, including allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of girls.”
  7. Widespread Use Of Racial Slurs: “MCSO personnel responsible for prisoners held in MCSO jails routinely direct racial slurs toward Latino prisoners, including calling Latino prisoners ‘paisas,’ ‘wetbacks,’ ‘Mexican bitches,’ ‘fucking Mexicans,’ and ‘stupid Mexicans.’”
  8. Widespread Racial Profiling: “[I]n the southwest portion of the County, the study found that Latino drivers are almost four times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct. . . . In the northwest portion of the County, the study found that Latino drivers are over seven times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct. . . . Most strikingly, in the northeast portion of the County, the study found that Latino drivers are nearly nine times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct.”
  9. Random, Unlawful Detention Of Latinos: “MCSO officers stopped a car carrying four Latino men, although the car was not violating any traffic laws. The MCSO officers ordered the men out of the car, zip-tied them, and made them sit on the curb for an hour before releasing all of them. The only reason given for the stop was that the men’s car ‘was a little low,’ which is not a criminal or traffic violation.”
  10. Group Punishments For Latinos: “In some instances, when a Latino [Low English Proficiency] prisoner has been unable to understand commands given in English, MCSO detention officers have put an entire area of the jail in lockdown—effectively preventing all the prisoners in that area from accessing a number of privileges because of the Latino LEP prisoner’s inability to understand English, inciting hostility toward the LEP prisoner, and potentially placing MCSO officers and other prisoners in harm’s way.”

Alyssa

Enough With the Supposedly-Badass Rogue Cops Already, ‘Gangster Squad’

You know, I just can’t get myself that excited to root for a bunch of uber-violent, rogue cops and an extralegal approach to law enforcement, no matter how many handsome men you have doing it, as in Gangster Squad:

This isn’t cool or admirable. And it’s a kind of approach that ends with innocent people brutalized and dead. Give me American Gangster any day, which glorified a straight-up approach to law enforcement and cast police corruption for the ugly thuggery it is.

Older

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

Sign Up