Keep Your Doctor Cartoon

Searing DOJ report says Ferguson PD routinely violated rights of African-Americans

The Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of the local African-American population in the Missouri city for years, the Department of Justice has found in a searing report.
The investigation, launched after the August shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, found that the department violated the Fourth Amendment in instances such as making traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause.
The report provides direct evidence of racial bias among police officers and court workers, and details a criminal justice system that through the issuance of petty citations for infractions such as walking in the middle of the street, prioritizes generating revenue from fines over public safety.
The practice hits poor people especially hard, sometimes leading to jail time when they can't pay, the report says, and has contributed to a cynicism about the police on the part of citizens.
The official release of the report could come as early as Wednesday. The details were provided to Fox News on Tuesday by law enforcement officials familiar with the department's findings.
The Justice Department alleges that the discrimination was triggered at least partly by racial bias and stereotypes about African-Americans, a violation of the 14th Amendment. The report details a November 2008 email on an official Ferguson municipal account which joked that President Obama would not be president for long because “what black man holds a steady job for four years?”
From 2012 to 2014, the report found, African-Americans comprised 85 percent of people pulled over for a traffic stop; 90 percent of those given citations; and 93 percent of arrests.
Also, African-American drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white drivers, but that those black drivers were 26 percent less likely to be found to be holding contraband.
The report also accuses the Ferguson police of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that 88 percent of those cases involved African-Americans.
Overall, blacks make up 67 percent of Ferguson's population.
The Justice Department began the civil rights investigation following the August killing of Brown, which set off weeks of protests. A separate report to be issued soon is expected to clear the officer, Darren Wilson, of federal civil rights charges.
The department has conducted roughly 20 broad civil rights investigations of police departments during the six-year tenure of Attorney General Eric Holder, including Cleveland, Newark, New Jersey and Albuquerque. Most such investigations end with police departments agreeing to change their practices.
Justice Department officials were in St. Louis on Tuesday to brief Ferguson leaders about the findings, a city official said.
Several messages seeking comment from Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson and Mayor James Knowles III were not returned. A secretary for Jackson said he is not doing media interviews.
Scott Holste, a spokesman for Gov. Jay Nixon, declined comment, saying he has not seen the report.
Ben Crump, the attorney for the Brown family, said that if the reports about the findings are true, they "confirm what Michael Brown's family has believed all along, and that is that the tragic killing of an unarmed 18-year-old black teenager was part of a systemic pattern of inappropriate policing of African-American citizens in the Ferguson community."

Clinton teases possible 2016 campaign at abortion group's gala

WASHINGTON –  Hillary Clinton on Tuesday credited women with making a difference at all levels of government, asking an audience of female Democrats, "Don't you someday want to see a woman president?"
On the cusp of a second presidential campaign, the former secretary of state previewed some of the economic themes that could animate an upcoming race, pointing to an economy that too often fails to address the challenges faced by families and working mothers.
"We have to get our economy to reflect the realities of 21st century America, and we're not doing that," Clinton said at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, an organization that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. "We're not doing that when the hard work of men and women across our country is not rewarded with rising wages, but CEO pay goes up and up no matter what."
Clinton's 30-minute address was punctuated by references to her future. She noted that during one's life, "you get a chance to make millions of decisions. Some of them are big, like 'Do you run for office?'"
Looking out at the ballroom of female Democrats, Clinton asked if they were hopeful of seeing more women running for local offices like school board member, governor, mayor and member of Congress. "I suppose it's only fair to say, 'Don't you someday want to see a woman president?'" she asked, generating loud applause.
Clinton steered clear of questions that emerged Tuesday about her use of a personal email account instead of a government-issued email address during her time as secretary of state. Republicans seized on the disclosures, accusing her of violating a law intended to archive official government documents. GOP officials have also amplified reports that the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments ahead of an expected Clinton campaign.
"It speaks volumes that Hillary Clinton will gladly attend fancy galas yet continue to hide from the American people," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Allison Moore. She said voters deserved to know "why she only used private email while serving as secretary of state at the same time the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments who were lobbying her State Department."
In her speech, Clinton accused Republicans of fostering policies promoting "trickle-down economics" but noted that both parties have spoken of ways to boost wages for middle-class workers. "We welcome them to come with their ideas and we will match them," Clinton said of the Republicans. "That's what elections should be about. Elections should be a contest of ideas."
The prospect of a Clinton campaign was invoked repeatedly by political leaders who have worked with the fundraising powerhouse, whose name is an acronym for "Early money is like yeast." The organization has a strong track record in Democratic politics, electing more than 100 women to the U.S. House, 19 to the Senate, 10 governors and more than 500 state and local officials.
"She's more than an idol," said Stephanie Schriock, EMILY's List's president, describing Clinton. "She's an inspiration — and a leader whose talents we desperately need."
The event brought to the stage Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the group's first endorsed candidate who recently announced her retirement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was gravely wounded in a deadly 2011 shooting during a political event at a Tucson, Arizona, shopping mall.
Giffords said female leaders deliver results, in places like city hall, state houses, governor's mansions and Congress, "and maybe soon, in the White House."
The organization has helped lay the groundwork for a potential Clinton campaign, holding events to promote the possibility of electing the nation's first female president and commissioning polling.
Ellen Malcolm, the founder of EMILY's List, pointed to Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign as the first step, bringing the audience to their feet when she identified 2016 as the "time to shatter that glass ceiling and put a woman in the White House." Clinton, seated in the audience, laughed and clapped along with the crowd.
"Hillary, you heard us," Malcolm said. "Just give us the word and we'll be right at your side."

As Supreme Court takes up ObamaCare, GOP offers alternatives, Dems warn of 'massive damage’

Congressional Republicans are proposing long and short-term alternatives to ObamaCare as the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments Wednesday in a case that has the potential to unravel the health care law.
The plaintiffs, four Virginia residents, argue that Americans who bought insurance through the federal ObamaCare exchange are not entitled to subsidies because the law says only those who bought policies in state exchanges are eligible.
At least 5.5 million Americans last year bought insurance on the federal exchange and received the subsidies.
Both sides in the case -- known as King v. Burwell -- generally agree that if the high court decides that millions of recipients are no longer eligible, they likely will no longer be able to afford insurance under ObamaCare and exit the system.
However, whether their departure would topple the entire health care law remains a matter of debate ahead of the expected high court ruling by June.
Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said nullifying the subsidies would cause "massive damage to our health care system" and that the administration would have no way to fix it.
The administration and Democrats who enacted the 2010 law over unanimous GOP opposition also largely back studies showing the number of people who would loses the subsidies, in the form of tax credits, is as high as 7.5 million.
And a recent analysis by the health care firm Avalere found that those who would lose their subsidies as a result of the court ruling would have their premiums increase an average 225 percent.
Ed Haislmaier, a health care policy expert with the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, on Tuesday predicated some fallout, or “dislocation’ but not to such an extent.
“Is the sky going to fall?” he asked. “No, but it’s probably going to rain in some places.”
Several top Capitol Hill Republicans have in the past few days announced pending, short-term alternatives if the court invalidates the subsidies for residents of the 34 states that use the federal ObamaCare exchange, not their own.
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week that his plan will set the stage for a “more permanent fix” but did not provide specifics.
On Sunday, Hatch was joined by fellow GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Barrasso of Wyoming in a Washington Post opinion piece saying they have a plan.
“We would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked,” the senators wrote. "It would be unfair to allow families to lose their coverage, particularly in the middle of the year."
However, they also provided no specifics on how to pay for the lost subsidies -- estimated at $36.1 billion.
Most of the 34 states in question are GOP-run and represented in Congress by Republicans.
On Tuesday, an opinion offering by Reps. John Kline, R-Minn., Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., appeared in The Wall Street Journal also presenting alternatives - but in more detail.
“No family should pay for this administration’s overreach,” the congressmen, chairmen, respectively, of the House committees on Education and Workforce, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce wrote.
“That is why House Republicans have formed a working group to propose a way out for the affected states if the court rules against the administration.”
The congressmen said their ObamaCare “off-ramp” will in part allow states to opt out of coverage requirements that are driving up costs, let Americans buy the policies they want and make insurers compete for customers, rather than force Americans to buy a government-approved health plan “under the threat of IRS fines.”

State Department says Netanyahu twisted Kerry's words in speech to Congress

Dems Trying to make him into the Bad Guy?

The State Department accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of taking congressional testimony by Secretary of State John Kerry out of context in Netanyahu's address to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday.
In a statement released early Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki quoted in full an article written on the website FactCheck.org that claimed certain remarks made by Netanyahu about Iran's nuclear program "misrepresented what Kerry had said" in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Feb. 25.
In his address, Netanyahu said Kerry had disclosed that Iran could "legitimately posses" 190,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium by the time a deal designed to restrict Iran's nuclear capability for a decade would expire. The Israeli leader, who referred to Kerry as "my long-time friend" in his speech, said that amount of centrifuges could put Iran "weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy."
However, the FactCheck.org article circulated by Psaki noted that Kerry had only said that a peaceful nuclear power program could use that same number of centrifuges.
"[I]f you have a civilian power plant that’s producing power legitimately and not a threat to proliferation, you could have as many as 190,000 or more centrifuges," Kerry told committee members.
Later in his speech, Netanyahu described the proposed agreement as one that "doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.
"So why would anyone make this deal?" the prime minister asked. "Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse? Well, I disagree."
The State Department statement was the latest salvo in an ongoing war of words that marked the run-up to Netanyahu's address and climaxed with harsh criticism for the Israeli leader from congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who branded the speech an "insult to the intelligence of the United States."
President Obama himself told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he didn't watch Netanyahu's address but read the transcript and it contained "nothing new." Obama claimed the prime minister did not offer any "viable alternatives" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
As Netanyahu spoke Tuesday, Kerry was holding a three-hour negotiating session with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in the Swiss resort of Montreux in hopes of completing an international framework agreement to curb Tehran's nuclear program. However, in that same Feb. 25 hearing, Kerry said Netanyahu "may have a judgment that just may not be correct here" in initially opposing an interim agreement reached this past November.
Negotiators from the so-called P5+1 countries, a group which includes the U.S., Britain, Russia, China, Germany, and France, are scrambling to meet a March 31 deadline to finalize the framework of a permanent deal, with a July deadline for a final agreement.
During his speech, Netanyahu urged negotiators to keep pressuring with economic sanctions because Tehran needs the deal most.
"Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff," Netanyahu said. "They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do."
In a sign that Netanyahu's speech was resonating outside the chamber of the House of Representatives, Zarif decried comments that President Barack Obama made on Monday — as part of an administration-wide effort to push back on the Israeli's criticism — in which he said that Iran would have to suspend its nuclear activities for at least a decade as part of any final agreement.
Zarif, in a statement quoted by Iran's official news agency IRNA, said Obama's remarks were "unacceptable and threatening," aimed at attracting U.S. public opinion while reacting to Netanyahu "and other extremist opponents of the talks."
For his part, Kerry told reporters Tuesday that both sides were "working away, productively."