James B. Taylor

Taylor’s bio notes that he is “chairman of World Youth Crusade [for Freedom] and former executive director and chief of staff of Young America’s Foundation.” It also includes that he was once public relations director for the anti-labor union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. It does not mention, however, that he also served as vice president of the National Policy Institute, a tax-exempt group than aims to be the lobby for “White Americans—our country’s historic majority and founding population—the people that bears the unique heritage of Europe, Christianity, cultural excellence, and the scientific awakening.” During Taylor’s time with the group, the white-nationalist foundation, founded in 2005 by right-wing publisher William Regnery, published a report arguing that “integration and the civil rights movement led directly to the destruction of great cities; and to millions of whites suffering terrible injustices, including assault, robbery, rape and murder, and losing everything they had through the ensuing destruction of their neighborhoods and their property values.”

Taylor did not respond to Mother Jones’ request for comment, but when asked about his connection to the National Policy Institute by a local newspaper last August, defended the mission of the group, saying: “You’ve got the NAACP and B’nai B’rith. Why not something for white people?”

The Young America Foundation, on whose nine-member board of directors Taylor sits, is a powerful force in the conservative movement. The group runs the Ronald Reagan ranch in Santa Barbara, CA, helped create the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and operates a center aimed at teaching journalists “the values of balanced, responsible, and accurate reporting.” Twice-defeated former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and former Attorney General Edwin Meese (R) are both affiliated with the organization.

As chairman of the World Youth Crusade for Freedom, which claims to “promote education and research in public policy and understanding by future world leaders,” Taylor received $18,000 in salary in 2010, out of the $23,191 the group took in in total revenue. In 2010, he was paid $22,000 out of the group’s $31,129 raised.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Taylor was a 2012 contributor to Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA). Barletta has come under fire for racist comments of his own — announcing this week that he will oppose immigration reform because Latinos are uneducated leeches who will never vote Republican anyway. The donation record identifies Taylor’s current occupation as “editor” for Tea Party Express, a key force in the Tea Party movement.

A newly elected Ohio Supreme Court justice who achieved the unlikely feat of ousting an incumbent without accepting any campaign contributions is not wasting any time in asserting his opposition to the death penalty. In an order this week setting an execution date for a convicted murderer, Judge William O’Neill issued a strong dissent blasting capital punishment as “inherently cruel and unusual,” even in the most egregious cases:

Without expressing an opinion as to appellant’s guilt or innocence, however, I would hold that capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. The death penalty is inherently both cruel and unusual and therefore is unconstitutional.

Capital punishment dates back to the days when decapitations, hangings, and brandings were also the norm. Surely, our society has evolved since those barbaric days. The United States is one of just a few civilized countries that still permit state executions.

To date, 17 states and the District of Columbia have eliminated the death penalty altogether. It is clear that the death penalty is becoming increasingly rare both around the world and in America. By definition it is unusual. […]

Additionally, death, even by lethal injection, is a cruel punishment. One need only look at the recent Ohio case of Romell Broom for a demonstration of that proposition. Although the executioners spent over two hours attempting to find a vein through which to administer the lethal injection, they ultimately failed. Subsequently, the governor granted a one-week reprieve. Broom remains on death row today. A more chilling definition of cruel is hard to imagine.

The time to end this outdated form of punishment in Ohio has arrived. While I recognize that capital punishment is the law of the land, I cannot participate in what I consider to be a violation of the Constitution I have sworn to uphold. I must respectfully dissent.

Conceding that this particular case involved a “horrific act deserving of the strongest punishment possible” — the kidnapping and stabbing of a child — O’Neill makes the point that even the most compelling cases do not merit a punishment that violates the U.S. Constitution. In so doing, he does not even touch upon the other compelling rationales for abolishing the death penalty – its arbitrary and racially discriminatory imposition, and the alarming frequency of wrongful convictions. It is because there are so many reasons to oppose the punishment that the consensus against it is increasingly overwhelming.

In addition to being an experienced appeals court judge, O’Neill is also a registered nurse who worked in a pediatric emergency department during his campaign, lending particular credence to his analysis of lethal injections as inherently cruel.

O’Neill proved during his judicial campaign that he is not afraid to speak truth to power. He ran on a platform that “money and judges don’t mix,” and responded to a request from the state’s bar association that he refrain from making “statements that impugn the court’s integrity and imply that justice is for sale” by saying, “I am not implying that justice is for sale. I am stating it as a matter of fact.”

(HT: Death Penalty Information Center)

Montana State Rep. Jerry O’Neil (R) is sponsoring a bill to allow defendants to “bargain with the court” to receive “corporal punishment in lieu of incarceration.” The bill would apply to not just misdemeanor crimes, but also felonies — though the bill requires that the “exact nature of the corporal punishment to be imposed” be “commensurate with the severity, nature, and degree of the harm caused by the offender.”

John S. Adams, who covers the Montana legislature for the Great Falls Tribune, wrote : “The measure is already raising eyebrows and is sure to catch the attention of those on the lookout for ‘bat crap crazy’ legislation this session. Republican leadership has been doing its best to tamp down any potential bills the other side might use to embarrass the GOP as they work to craft a budget. This one apparently didn’t get tamped.”

Then-Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) observed, in a 2011 interview, that some Montana legislators “draft bills just to get an effect from the people,” but “unfortunately, it kind of makes some of them look bat-crap crazy.”

O’Neil, a long-time state lawmaker, has been the subject of controversy in the past: last November he requested to receive his legislative salary in gold and silver, incorrectly interpreting a provision of the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from minting their own paper currency. More recently, he said that the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy “came at an opportune time” for U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), she has been working on an assault weapons ban for years.

During Wednesday morning’s hearing on gun violence legislation, a Republican witness made a curious assertion: gun regulation was a bad idea because women need guns.

Gayle Trotter, a senior fellow at the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, was brought on to testify against gun regulation on the grounds that women were weaker than violent male criminals and hence needed guns to level the playing field in a confrontation:

Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They’re light. They’re easy for women to hold. And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened, violent criminals. If we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting women at a great disadvantage, more so than men, because they do not have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to defend themselves

The real problem women face with respect to guns is domestic violence.

Researchers estimate that roughly half to two thirds of people killed by domestic abusers were killed by a gun, many of whom were also substance abusers. Another study found that “domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force,” while a third, according the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, concluded that “abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.”

Federal background checks disqualify people with domestic violence misdemeanors from owning guns. But since right now, forty percent of gun sales happen privately, without required background checks, it’s very easy for abusers to get access to firearms.