California Dems push to repeal 'welfare queen' law

WASHINGTON –  California Democrats are trying to reverse a decades-old state law that bars families from getting extra welfare money for having an additional child, describing the law as "sexist" and "classist" -- despite concerns that repealing it could compound the state's money woes. 
The so-called "welfare queen" law was passed two decades ago during the heyday of welfare reform. At the time, Democrats were in charge of the state legislature and Republican Pete Wilson was governor. 
Today, Democrats are still in charge, but the base of support for the law is fading.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell recently introduced a bill that would repeal the policy, which she says was initially engineered to discourage welfare recipients from having additional children. The problem, she argues, is that it didn’t work.
In fact, with the cap in place, California’s childhood poverty rate has climbed to the highest in the nation. For Mitchell, this is her third attempt at abolishing the “welfare queen” law.
“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said in a written statement. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”
But Republican strategist Bradley Blakeman warned there could be repercussions to nixing the policy. 
“California is in serious financial difficulty,” Blakeman told FoxNews.com’s “Strategy Room.” “The law should stay as it is. It makes sense. It’s a good deterrent for parents to be responsible and not bring children into a world they cannot care for.”
Repealing the law indeed would cost California taxpayers. One analysis estimates that overturning it would cost an already cash-starved state close to $205 million just in the first year.
Coined in the 1970s when then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan described the case of a Chicago welfare fraudster, the term “welfare queen” has evolved into shorthand for a poor woman with children she can’t support without government checks.
Nationally, President Clinton signed sweeping welfare reform legislation into law in 1996. The next year, then-California Gov. Wilson and state lawmakers collaborated on a program called CalWORKs which set grant levels, work requirements and other standards for people eligible for financial assistance. 
The family cap idea was pitched as a way to cut down on government dependency. But Mary Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, told FoxNews.com that the data doesn’t add up. 
She said the current policy "isn’t even a Band-Aid," and, “They are dealing with symptoms, not causes.” 
Theroux isn't pushing for repeal, but rather, believes a better way to reduce the poverty rate is to tear down economic and educational barriers. 
California is among 24 states that have put family cap policies in place over the past two decades, according to the California Berkeley Law Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice. There are currently 15 states that have family cap policies, including Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia.
Under California’s law, welfare assistance is denied for any child born into a family in which any parent or child was receiving aid 10 months prior to the birth.
California, though, is the only state that grants exemptions based on the failure of three specific forms of contraceptives: IUD, Norplant and sterilization. The law says families that want to challenge the restriction must provide proof that their birth control failed. There are also exemptions in place for children born from rape or incest.
Some anti-poverty advocates like the California Latinas for Reproductive Justice say the government is “using the threat of deeper poverty” if recipients don’t use contraception.

Kim Jong Cartoon

Netanyahu turns down meeting with Senate Democrats

WASHINGTON –  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday turned down an invitation to meet privately with Senate Democrats next week during his visit to Washington, saying the session "could compound the misperception of partisanship" surrounding his trip.
Angering the White House and Democrats, Netanyahu accepted an invitation from Republican leaders to address a joint meeting of Congress on March 3 and speak about Iran. The GOP leaders did not consult with the Obama administration, which the White House called a breach of protocol.
Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Monday invited Netanyahu to meet in a closed-door session with Democrats during his visit. He declined the invitation on Tuesday and expressed regret about the politically fraught tone of his trip.
"I regret that the invitation to address the special joint session of Congress has been perceived by some to be political or partisan," Netanyahu wrote. "I can assure you that my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."
Netanyahu said to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming visit."
More than a half dozen House and Senate Democrats have said they will skip the speech, calling it an affront to President Barack Obama and the administration as they engage in high-level negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling and has no plans to attend the speech.
Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu, with the administration saying such a session would break with past practices of engaging with world leaders close to elections. Israel's elections are set for March 17.
Durbin said in a statement that he regretted that Netanyahu could not meet with the Democrats.
"We offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to balance the politically divisive invitation from Speaker (John) Boehner with a private meeting with Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel strong," Durbin said. "His refusal to meet is disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades."

African-American media group sues Comcast, Time Warner, Al Sharpton for $20 billion

LOS ANGELES –  A group representing black-owned media companies said two media conglomerates paid off Al Sharpton to make their merger look good.
While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to decide whether media giants Comcast and Time Warner Cable can merge as proposed, the National Association of African-American Owned Media group has filed an explosive $20 billion lawsuit against the companies – and MSNBC host Al Sharpton -- for allegedly discriminating against black-owned media.
The complaint, filed in California on Friday, also names an array of African-American advocacy organizations for partaking in the “devious” discrimination. The plaintiff says it is a group that seeks to “unite voices across the communications and entertainment industries to fight for economic inclusion, including equal access to distribution, investment capital, sponsorship, and other critical resources.”
The suit alleges that Comcast’s memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with non-media civil rights groups, including the NAACP, National Urban League, Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network, further “facilitate Comcast’s racist practices and policies in contracting – or, more accurately, refusing to contract – with 100 percent African American-owned media companies.”
It claims that, to date, the only 100 percent African American-owned channel Comcast has agreed to broadcast is the Africa Channel, “with only limited distribution and channel carriage fees.”
“To obtain support for the NBC-Universal acquisition and for its continued racist policies and practices, Comcast made large cash ‘donations’ to the non-media groups that signed the MOUs. For example, Comcast has paid Reverend Al Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network over $3.8 million in ‘donations’ and as salary for the on-screen television hosting position on MSNBC that Comcast awarded Sharpton in exchange for his signature,” the suit continues. “Comcast spent millions of dollars to pay non-media civil rights groups to support its acquisition of NBC-Universal, while at the same time refusing to do business with 100 percent African-American owned media companies.”
According to the suit, such payments contained an ulterior motive – “to make Comcast look like a good corporate citizen while it steadfastly refused to contract” with fully African-American owned channels, and also claims that the media conglomerate refuses to treat these channels “the same as similarly-situated white-owned media companies.”
“White-owned media in general – and Comcast in particular – has worked hand-in-hand with governmental regulators to perpetuate the exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media from contracting for channel carriage and advertising,” the suit alleges. “This has been done through, among other things, the use of ‘token fronts’ and ‘window dressing’ – African American celebrities posing as ‘fronts’ or ‘owners’ of so-called ‘Black cable channels’ that are actually majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses.”
The suit goes on to note that Comcast is a “major player in Washington, D.C. and has used its clout and money to buy approval for its acquisitions and sweep its racist practices under the rug,” alleging that Comcast’s chief lobbyist and executive vice president, David Cohen, is the “mastermind behind Comcast’s many conflicts of interest.”
A representative for Comcast told FOX411 that while they do not generally comment on pending litigation, this complaint represents “nothing more than a string of inflammatory, inaccurate, and unsupported allegations.”
“We are proud of our outstanding record supporting and fostering diverse programming, including programming from African American owned and controlled cable channels. We currently carry more than 100 networks geared toward diverse audiences, including multiple networks owned or controlled by minorities,” continued the statement. “Comcast has engaged in good faith negotiations with this programmer for many years.  It is disappointing that they have decided to file a frivolous lawsuit.  We will defend vigorously against the scurrilous allegations in this complaint and fully expect that the court will dismiss them.”
The National Action Network told The Hollywood Reporter that they have yet to be served with court papers, but dismissed the claims against them as “frivolous” and declared their intention to “gladly defend our relationship with any company as well as to state on the record why we found these discriminatory accusations.”
California-based attorney, Leo Terrell – who is not connected to the suit – says it has “no merit whatsoever.”
“The plaintiffs have no direct evidence of discrimination. The lawsuit is nothing but accusations without factual support of racial motivation,” he told FOX411. “Had the plaintiffs approached me for representation, I would not take their case.”   
In December, the National Association of African-American Owned Media also filed a similar $10 billion racial discrimination lawsuit against AT&T and DirecTV.
"It is appalling, deeply upsetting and totally unacceptable now and moving forward that economic exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media continues to be perpetuated by these behemoth media conglomerates and their persistent, rigid refusal to contract with 100 percent African American owned media," Mark DeVitre, President of NAAAOM, said in a statement at the time.

Fiorina to Clinton: ‘Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment’

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is flirting with a Republican presidential bid in 2016, took some tough shots Tuesday at the likely Democratic front-runner – effectively accusing Hillary Clinton of running for office on a record of air travel.
"Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe,” Fiorina said. “But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”
Fiorina spoke in Atlanta at a luncheon hosted by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. It marked at least the second time in as many months she has gone hard after Clinton; Fiorina previously criticized Clinton during an address last month at the Iowa Freedom Summit in Des Moines.
On Tuesday, Fiorina said that despite Clinton’s extensive travel as secretary of state, “every place in the world is more dangerous today than it was six years ago."
She also went after Clinton over recent reports on how the Clinton Foundation had lifted its own ban on foreign donations, and potential conflicts of interest that could arise from that should Clinton run for the White House.
“Really? This is the best we can do is to have yet another decade of campaign finance scandals?" Fiorina said.
Fiorina, who ran unsuccessfully for Senate in California in 2010, is often overshadowed by other big-name GOP presidential hopefuls, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But she has been making the moves to prepare for a potential candidacy. 
Later Tuesday, Fiorina supporters announced they were launching a SuperPac entitled Carly for America to "help lay the groundwork for a potential presidential candidacy."
Fiorina's searing criticism was delivered shortly before Clinton herself spoke at a Silicon Valley women's conference, her first U.S. speech of the year.
Tuesday’s speech opens a stretch of public appearances in the next month ahead of an all-but-certain launch of her bid for the Democratic nomination.
The former secretary of state until now has steered clear of the spotlight -- her only two speeches in 2015 came in Canada last month -- choosing instead to huddle with advisers as a large field of Republican presidential hopefuls compete for attention.
Clinton was speaking Tuesday at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women in Santa Clara, Calif., an appearance before 5,000 attendees.
Clinton is scheduled to step up her public appearances in March, appearing at a gala for EMILY's List, which supports female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, an awards ceremony in Washington for political journalists and a United Nations meeting on women's rights.

Former Marine found guilty in 'American Sniper' trial

A former Marine was found guilty late Tuesday of the 2013 shooting deaths of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, the author of "American Sniper," and his friend Chad Littlefield.
It took an Erath County, Texas jury less than two hours to convict Eddie Ray Routh of capital murder. State District Judge Jason Cashon sentenced Routh to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prosecutors had not sought the death penalty in the case. Routh's defense team said they would appeal the conviction.
"We have waited two years for God to get justice on behalf of our son," Littlefield's mother, Judy, told reporters outside the courthouse. "And as always, God has proven to be faithful, and we're so thrilled that we have the verdict that we have tonight."
Chris Kyle's widow, Taya, was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Earlier in the day, she had stormed out of the courtroom in the middle of the defense's closing arguments, whispering an expletive and slamming her hand on the wall as she walked out the door. At the time, attorneys were discussing how useful it would have been for Routh's mother to have told Chris Kyle about her son's history of violence. 
Routh showed no visible emotion as the verdict was read, while Kyle's brother and parents were among a group of the victims' families and friends who cried and held hands. They did not issue a statement.
Jerry Richardson, Littlefield's half-brother, told Routh that he "took the lives of two heroes, men who tried to be a friend to you, and you became an American disgrace." Routh had no reaction.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted "JUSTICE!" in response to the verdict.
Routh, 27, had admitted to killing Kyle and Littlefield at a gun range on Feb. 2, 2013 but pleaded not guilty. His attorneys and family members asserted that he suffers from psychotic episodes caused by post-traumatic stress disorder and other factors.
But prosecutors said Tuesday that whatever episodes Routh suffers are self-induced through alcohol and marijuana abuse.
In front of a packed courtroom, Erath County assistant District Attorney Jane Starnes and three defense attorneys made their case.
"That is not insanity. That is just cold, calculated capital murder," Starnes said. "(Routh) is guilty of capital murder and he was not by any means insane."
But defense attorneys contended that Routh could not have realized what he was doing.
"He didn't kill those men because of who he wanted to be, he killed those men because he had a delusion," Warren St. John said. "He thought that they were going to kill him."
Kyle and Littlefield took Routh, who had deployed to Iraq and earthquake-ravaged Haiti, to a shooting range after Routh's mother asked Kyle to help her son cope with PTSD and other personal demons. Interest in the trial had been partially driven by the blockbuster Oscar-nominated film based on Kyle's life.
Routh's attorneys also pointed to the gunman's use of Kyle's pickup truck after the shooting to purchase tacos at a drive-through window and run assorted errands as evidence of delusional behavior.
Had Routh been found not guilty by reason of insanity, the state could have moved to have him committed.
Routh's attorneys pointed out that they needed only a preponderance of evidence for jurors to conclude Routh was insane at the time of the shootings and therefore not guilty, a standard of proof well below what would be required to convict him of capital murder.
But prosecutors also noted that Routh had apologized to Kyle's family -- evidence, they said, of a guilty mind.
"This defendant gunned down two men in cold blood, in the back, in our county. Find him guilty," Erath County District Attorney Alan Nash said.
Kyle made more than 300 kills as a sniper for SEAL Team 3, according to his own count. After leaving the military, he volunteered with veterans facing mental health problems, often taking them shooting.

Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill

President Obama on Tuesday followed through on his vow to veto bipartisan-backed legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, marking his first veto of the Republican-led Congress and only the third of his presidency. 
The president, in a brief statement, claimed the bill would "circumvent" the existing process for reviewing the pipeline, which would extend from Canada to Texas. 
"The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously," Obama said. "But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto." 
The decision, while expected, was met with tough criticism from Republicans -- and tees up another showdown with Congress in the coming days as GOP leaders try to override. 
"It's extremely disappointing that President Obama vetoed a bipartisan bill that would support thousands of good jobs and pump billions of dollars into the economy," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. "Even though the President has yielded to powerful special interests, this veto doesn't end the debate." 
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the veto a "national embarrassment." 
McConnell's office said the Senate plans to vote on overriding sometime before March 3. 
But so far, congressional leaders have not demonstrated they have the votes to override, which takes a two-thirds majority in both chambers. 
The Keystone bill garnered 62 yeas in the Senate, but they would need 67 to override. In the House, the bill got 270 votes -- but they would need 281 to override. 
It remains unclear whether moderate lawmakers could be swayed to switch in the coming weeks. 
While Tuesday's veto marked only the third of Obama's presidency -- fewer than any U.S. president since the 19th century -- his sparing use of the presidential tool is likely to change. With Republicans now in control of Congress, their efforts to chip away at the president's health care law and other legislative accomplishments are just as likely to be met with Obama's veto pen. 
To date, Obama rarely has used the veto in part because Democrats for six years controlled at least one chamber in Congress -- acting as a buffer to prevent unwanted bills from ever reaching the president's desk. That buffer is now gone. 
A look back at past presidencies, especially where control of the White House and Congress was split during at least one point, shows far more liberal use of that presidential power. 
In the Clinton presidency, the president issued 37 vetoes in his two terms. President Ronald Reagan issued 78. President George W. Bush issued 12. His father issued 44. 
Not since the Warren G. Harding administration has the number of vetoes been in the single digits; Harding issued six. 
The Keystone bill is as contentious an issue as any for Obama to fire his first veto shot of the new Congress. 
First proposed in 2008, the Keystone pipeline would connect Canada's tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. 
The White House has said repeatedly it would wait to make its decision about whether to let the project go forward until after a State Department review. It regards the legislation as circumventing that process.

Islamists Cartoon

Alaska becomes third state to legalize recreational marijuana as ballot measure takes effect

Mother's Proud.

JUNEAU, Alaska –  Alaska on Tuesday became the third U.S. state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, but organizers don't expect any public celebrations since it remains illegal to smoke marijuana in public.
In the state's largest city, Anchorage police officers are ready to start handing out $100 fines to make sure taking a toke remains something to be done behind closed doors.
Placing Alaska in the same category as Washington state and Colorado with legal marijuana was the goal of a coalition including libertarians, rugged individualists and small-government Republicans who prize the privacy rights enshrined in the Alaska state constitution.
When they voted 53-47 percent last November to legalize marijuana use by adults in private places, they left many of the details to lawmakers and regulators to sort out.
That has left confusion on many matters.
The initiative bans smoking in public, but didn't define what that means, and lawmakers left the question to the alcohol regulatory board, which planned to meet early Tuesday to discuss an emergency response.
That's left different communities across the state to adopt different standards of what smoking in public means to them. In Anchorage, officials tried and failed in December to ban a new commercial marijuana industry. But Police Chief Mark Mew said his officers will be strictly enforcing the public smoking ban. He even warned people against smoking on their porches if they live next to a park.
But far to the north, in North Pole, smoking outdoors on private property will be OK as long as it doesn't create a nuisance, officials there said.
Other officials are still discussing a proposed cultivation ban for the Kenai Peninsula.
In some respects, the confusion continues a four-decade reality for Alaskans and their relationship with marijuana.
While the 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision protected personal marijuana possession and a 1998 initiative legalized medicinal marijuana, state lawmakers twice criminalized any possession over the years, creating an odd legal limbo.
As of Tuesday, adult Alaskans can not only keep and use pot, they can transport, grow it and give it away. A second phase, creating a regulated and taxed marijuana market, won't start until 2016 at the earliest. That's about the same timeline for Oregon, where voters approved legalizing marijuana the same day as Alaska did but the law there doesn't go into effect until July 1. Washington state and Colorado voters legalized marijuana in 2012 and sales have started there.
And while possession is no longer a crime under state law, enjoying pot in public can bring a $100 fine.
That's fine with Dean Smith, a pot-smoker in Juneau who has friends in jail for marijuana offenses. "It's going to stop a lot of people getting arrested for nonviolent crimes," he said.
The initiative's backers warned pot enthusiasts to keep their cool.
"Don't do anything to give your neighbors reason to feel uneasy about this new law. We're in the midst of an enormous social and legal shift," organizers wrote in the Alaska Dispatch News, the state's largest newspaper.
Richard Ziegler, who had been promoting what he called "Idida-toke" in a nod to Alaska's Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, reluctantly called off his party.
There's no such pullback for former television reporter Charlo Greene, now CEO of the Alaska Cannabis Club, which is having its grand opening on Tuesday in downtown Anchorage. She's already pushing the limits, promising to give away weed to paying "medical marijuana" patients and other "club members."
Greene -- who quit her job with a four-letter walkoff on live television last year to devote her efforts to passing the initiative -- plans a celebratory toke at 4:20 p.m.
Meanwhile, Alaska Native leaders worry that legalization will bring new temptations to communities already confronting high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and suicide.
"When they start depending on smoking marijuana, I don't know how far they'd go to get the funds they need to support it, to support themselves," said Edward Nick, council member in Manokotak, a remote village of 400 that is predominantly Yup'ik Eskimo.
Both alcohol and drug use are prohibited in Nick's village 350 miles southwest of Anchorage, even inside the privacy of villagers' homes.
But Nick fears that the initiative, in combination with a 1975 state Supreme Court decision that legalized marijuana use inside homes -- could open doors to drug abuse.
Initiative backers promised Native leaders that communities could still have local control under certain conditions. Alaska law gives every community the option to regulate alcohol locally. From northern Barrow to Klawock, 1,291 miles away in southeast Alaska, 108 communities impose local limits on alcohol, and 33 of them ban it altogether.
But the initiative did not provide clear opt-out language for tribal councils and other smaller communities, forcing each one to figure out how to proceed Tuesday.

Flower Power: Christian florist rejects attorney general’s offer, won’t betray her religious beliefs

Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington State florist who declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding , has rejected a deal by the attorney general’s office that would’ve forced her to betray her religious beliefs – much like Judas betrayed Jesus.
“You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver,” Stutzman wrote in a letter to state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “That is something I will not do.”

Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal.

Ferguson had offered to settle the case if she paid a $2,000 penalty for violating the Consumer Protection Act, a $1 payment for costs and fees, and agreed not to discriminate in the future.
“My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said in a prepared statement.
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK!
On Feb. 18 a judge ruled Stutzman had violated the law by refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding of a longtime customer. The state had not only gone after the flower shop but also Stutzman personally.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the religious liberty law firm representing Stutzman, said legal bills could be as high as seven figures.
“He’s using the full power of his office to personally and professionally destroy her,” ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner told me.
But the 70-year-old Southern Baptist grandmother said she will not violate her religious beliefs – no matter what. If that means losing her house – so be it.
“I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my homes and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important,” Stutzman wrote in a letter to the attorney general. (You can read my earlier story on Stutzman’s case here.)
She said the attorney general simply does not understand her or what the conflict is all about.
“It’s about freedom, not money,” she said. “You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating and having a home.”
Stutzman’s attorneys said they plan to appeal the judge’s decision – meaning she won’t have to fork over any money just yet to Washington State.
In the meantime, she said she would continue to gladly serve the customer who filed the lawsuit.
“I truly want the best for my friend,” she wrote. “I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case.”
Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal. And that in the state of Washington using your God-given talents and abilities would be against the law.
The Seattle Times reported that Judge Ekstrom determined that “while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren’t necessarily protected.”
In other words – it’s OK to believe in God – so long as you don’t follow the tenets of your faith.
“Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences,” she wrote. “Because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.”
This is one granny that you don’t want to dig in the dirt with.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is "God Less America."