A new report by Mother Jones reveals that James B. Taylor, a prominent conservative movement leader and board member for the Young America’s Foundation, once served as vice president of a white supremacist group.

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.

In an exchange during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on guns, a Republican witness attempted to defend allowing civilians to own 33-round or even potentially 100-round magazines. Capt. Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), explained in very personal terms why these magazines should be banned:

The shooter in Tuscon showed up with two 33-round magazines, one of which was in his 9mm. He unloaded the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds — very quickly. It all happened very, very fast. The first bullet went into Gabby’s head. Bullet number 13 went into a 9 year-old girl named Christina Taylor Greene, who was very interested in democracy and our government, and really deserved a full life committed to advancing those ideas. If [the shooter] had a 10-round magazine? Well, let me back up.

When he tried to reload one 33-round magazine with another 33-round magazine, he dropped it, and a woman named Patricia Maisch grabbed it, and it gave bystanders time to tackle him. I contend if that same thing had happened when he was trying to reload one 10-round magazine with another 10-round magazine, meaning he did not have access to a high capacity magazine, and the same thing happened, Christina Taylor Greene would be alive today. I certainly am willing to give up my ability to own a high-capacity magazine to bring that young woman back.

Watch it:

Two weeks ago, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus called upon “states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” to consider a Republican plan to rig future presidential races. Under the GOP plan, these blue states would stop awarding electoral votes to the winner of the state as a whole, and instead would award them one-by-one to the winner of each congressional district. Because these districts are highly gerrymandered to favor Republicans, the election-rigging plan ensures that Republicans will win the overwhelming majority of the electoral votes in these blue states regardless of how the people of those states cast their votes.

Six states potentially fit Priebus’ description of a blue state that is currently controlled by Republicans — Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. To date, senior Republicans in four of these states have either voted down the plan or indicated that it will not be taken up in the first place, and the governor of a fifth state has expressed concerns about the plan:

• Florida: Florida is the least blue of the six states where the GOP plan could be enacted, so it is unsurprising that top Florida Republicans appear cold to the plan. Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford (R) compared the plan to rigging a football game, and state Senate President Don Gaetz (R) supports abolishing the Electoral College altogether.
• Virginia: Yesterday, a Virginia state senate committee voted to kill the election-rigging plan by an overwhelming 11-4 vote. Four Republicans opposed rigging the Electoral College.
• Ohio: Many of the most senior Republicans in Ohio, including Gov. John Kasich, state Senate President Keith Faber and House Speaker William G. Batchelder all said this week that they will not pursue the election-rigging plan, and Batchelder added that he “is not supportive of such a move.”
• Michigan: In an interview with Bloomberg yesterday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) said that he is “very skeptical” of the election-rigging plan and would oppose taking it up at least until right before the next redistricting.
• Wisconsin: The election-rigging plan is decidedly not dead in Wisconsin, but Gov. Scott Walker (R) said earlier this week that he has “real concern” that it could diminish the relevance of Wisconsin in presidential races.

So the Republican Plan is officially dead in one state and lacks the support of essential lawmakers in three states. Of the two states where it is decidedly still alive — Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — the top Republican in one of those states says he has concerns about the plan. Nevertheless, supporters of democracy should not break out the champagne yet because there are three reasons to be frightened that the plan could reemerge.

The first is that the plan is still alive and well in Pennsylvania, which has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every single election for more than two decades. Both Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) support rigging the Electoral College.
Read more

As the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on gun safety in the aftermath of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, local authorities are reporting three shots fired at an office complex in Phoenix, Arizona. There could be as many as four victims. At least one woman has been loaded into an ambulance.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been among the Senate’s most vocal backers of draconian budget cuts and has opposed increasing funds to put more police officers on the streets, said Wednesday that he will oppose gun violence prevention legislation because budget cuts will mean inadequate police forces to protect the public.

Graham told Baltimore Chief of Police James Johnson and former naval Captain Mark Kelly (husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords) that he planned to oppose the gun violence measures because people will need high-capacity magazines to compensate for the police response times these austerity measures will force:

GRAHAM: The point is, we have different perspectives on this. The reason I will oppose the legislation, Chief Johnston, is because i respect what your do as a lot — what you do as a law-enforcement officer. Has your budget been cut?

JOHNSON: Yes.

GRAHAM: Do you think it be cut in the future?

JOHNSON: I am optimistic that it is not.

GRAHAM: Well I hope your right, but I can tell people throughout this land, because of the fiscal state of affairs we have, there will be less [SIC] police officers, not more, over the next decade. Response time are gonna be less, not more. So, Captain Kelly, I really do want to get guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I honest to god believe that if we arbitrarily “say nobody in this country can own a 10-round magazine in the future, the people who own them are the kind of people we’re trying to combat to begin with.” There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here.

Watch the video:

President Obama has proposed expanding the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which helps local governments hire police officers, but Republicans have opposed the effort.

Students in Missouri have no sexual education requirement, so there’s a good chance they don’t know how to properly protect themselves from STIs or unintended pregnancy. Soon, though, they may be able to protect themselves from guns.

Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom.

The irony that there’s no requirement for students to learn about their bodies — but that there is one for deadly weapons — seems lost on the legislators proposing the measure, one of whom lamented, “I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate”:

Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla, told the Senate General Laws Committee Tuesday that his bill was an effort to teach young children what to do if they come across an unsecured weapon.[...]

“I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate,” Brown said.

Senators watched a brief segment of the training video during the hearing. The segment featured a cartoon eagle telling children to step away from an unsecured gun and immediately report it to an adult.

The measure would also require teachers to spend eight hours in a training course for how to respond to an armed assailant in the school. But the NRA will not foot the bill for the cost of substitute teachers on those days — despite the organizations stated focus on protecting the classroom.

And if the legislature is truly worried about protecting their students, sex education is a good place to start. Missouri’s young people suffer some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the country. Many of the schools run abstinence-only education, which is proven ineffective and likely to lead to more STIs and unintended pregnancies. It may not be as terrifying to a parent to imagine their child pregnant instead of shot, but it’s a much more likely possibility: In Missouri, 51 out of every 1,000 women have an unintended pregnancy, while there are 12.3 gun deaths per 100,00 people.

Less than two weeks ago, Hadiya Pendleton was leading her classmates in the King College Prep School Marching Band down Pennsylvania Avenue on the afternoon of President Obama’s second inauguration. It would be an opportunity of a lifetime for any 15 year old, but for Pendleton, it was her last. On Tuesday, she was gunned down in a park a few blocks from school on the South Side of Chicago, less than a mile from the first family’s home.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Pendleton and another classmate, a 16 year old boy, were both caught in the middle of a gang war. The boy was still in serious condition on Tuesday evening, but Pendleton did not survive:

Friends of the slain girl said King was dismissed early today because of exams, and students went to the park on Oakenwald–something they don’t usually do.

Friends said the girl was a majorette and a volleyball player, a friendly and sweet presence at King, one of the top 10 CPS selective enrollment schools. Pendleton performed with other King College students at President Barack Obama’s inaugural events.

In the last year, Chicago has endured a surge of gun-related murders, more than quadruple the number of homicides in New York City and 58 percent more than the number of U.S. soldiers shot and killed in Afghanistan. During the recent debate over gun control, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has sought to place his city at the front of the push for reform, instructing the city’s pension funds to divest from any gun manufacturer and supporting more gun buyback programs.

Later today, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is set to testify before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and will reaffirm his organization’s opposition to universal background checks for persons who wish to purchase a firearm. According to a copy of LaPierre’s prepared remarks that was leaked on Tuesday, the NRA’s top executive will claim that “when it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be “universal” – because criminals will never submit to them.”

Meanwhile, the latest poll from Gallup shows that just 8 percent of the country agrees with the NRA on background checks. Other polls found a higher approval rating for polygamy (which 11 percent of respondents support), and Congress (9 percent). Additionally, polls have found more support for support Hugo Chavez (9 percent), human cloning (17 percent) and communism (9 percent) than the NRA’s position on this issue. Exactly the same percentage of people support the Panetta-Burns deficit reduction plan — which doesn’t exist.