On: Gay Marriage and the Democrats

Approximately two months after President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage, Democrats have officially added gay marriage to their party platform.

Read more from the Washington Post

On: The gun control debate -- Let's talk

Those who pay attention to sports know this hard and fast rule: When leading in the latter stages of the game, try nothing new; instead, opt to protect the lead. Such may be the ongoing strategy of conservatives, who essentially won the argument over gun control eight years ago.

Therefore, during this past week of resurgent debate on guns and America, a near constant refrain from conservatives has emerged: the complaint that liberals’ newly invigorated advocacy of gun control is politicization of a tragedy. Instead of shying away from the charge, liberals should respond with an emphatic “yes.” The left cannot take credit for the initial politicization of gun violence, but they should be willing to take part in a tradition.

That tradition began in 1791, when the first generation of Americans exercised their right to amend their country’s constitution with the Second Amendment.

The result: American gun ownership (and by relation, gun violence) is inherently political, because it inevitably gets caught up in the notions of rights, liberties and government power. 

Modern day conservatives love to wear admiration of the Constitution on their sleeves, as if it meaningfully distinguishes them from modern day liberals. In truth, the left is equally enamored with the Constitution’s complexities, ambiguities and relevance. They are no less eager to take questions of constitutional legitimacy seriously, if for nothing more than the laws they wish to codify must pass its muster.

When it comes to the Constitution, the difference between left wing and right wing is best described in terms of differing interpretations, rather than doubts regarding whether the document need be considered at all.

Liberals hold that the document is “living”, and therefore amenable to the evolving social morays of changing times. Conservatives believe that it exists to remove changing social norms from  political discussion, in effect invalidating them from government action. Some things, they insist, are simply not up for grabs.

Exactly why the Second Amendment should be immune from these debates is unclear, as well as why tragedies should go unconsidered as we rifle through our passionate argumentation.


Tragedies are indispensable in these debates because they ground are often lofty rhetoric in reality.

Those who study the hard sciences know the importance of theory and practice. Subjects such as biology, physics and chemistry would be nothing without class work (the theory) and lab work (the application of theory so practical outcomes can be observed).

In politics, tragedies like Colorado’s are the closest we come to a parallel. In tones of insufferable knowingness, we can discuss natural rights (are they absolute?), conflicting liberties (where do one’s rights end and another’s begin?), and the knife edge on which government compulsion rests (where is the line between necessity and tyranny?).

That is the theory.  Last Friday was the practice. It served as a tangible and emotional reminder that despite the heady complications we discuss on Sunday morning news shows, our gun control laws allowed this to happen. This isn’t worth political discussion?

To those who argue for more liberal access to firearms, reciting statistics about gun deaths per year is considered perfectly legitimate, even if they find such statistics unconvincing. That, being their prerogative, is perfectly fair.

Yet somehow, when gun violence grabs the nation by its lapels and forces it to take notice, when it doesn’t occur in places where we have become acclimated to it, when the guns purchased aren’t run of the mill weapons but the deadliest available, somewhere a line of propriety has been crossed.

Unanswered thoughts

The questions which follow massacres are unavoidable: Is the right to own a gun so absolute that Friday’s victims are acceptable, if truly regrettable, losses? Where does the right of citizens like James Holmes -- those with no legally recognizable reason to preclude  them from gun ownership -- end, and the right of the public to expect a certain degree of safety begin?  Does the fact that one man so easily and quickly took the lives of others mean the government should compel the citizenry to relinquish their assault weapons, or is this, in effect, a government over reach?

These questions aren’t just unavoidable, they are conducive to the nation as a whole. Just because our search is difficult does not lessen their importance for American society and culture.

Conservatives, join the debate. It’s rather dull without you.

On: The Mexican Economy

As drugs continue to infest Mexico, and the American economy remains stagnant, the Mexican middle class is booming, reports the Washington Post. The primary reason are the illegal immigrants who come to North America in search of work. Studies show that while those who come for short periods of time only send money to back home for basic sustenance, they also show that the longer an illegal immigrant stays, the more likely that money is be used to start a business.

Read more from The Washington Post.

On: William Raspberry

Our commentator is off this week. Instead, we honor commentary great, William Raspberry, who died Tuesday. He was 76.

Dr. King and his killer became symbols, Apr. 7, 1968

Nation must now commit itself to King’s principles, Apr. 8, 1968

Beyond busing — to learning, Mar. 8, 1982

Guns all around, Jan. 6, 1993

Obama’s speech: All together, now, Aug. 2, 2004

Accepting our shades of purple, Nov. 15, 2004

Tom Delay and the kablooey principle, Oct. 3, 2005

Our civil disagreement, Dec. 19, 2005

What I’ll do next, Dec. 26, 2005

After Obama, a path beyond grievance, Nov. 11, 2008

Mormons and African Americans are still viewed skeptically

A new Washing Post-ABC News poll shows just how far -- or how little -- America has come with regard to its opinions of Mormons and African Americans. The results: "Substantial prejudice still exists for both Mormons and African Americans, despite shifting views on both groups since Barack Obama and Mitt Romney first ran for president four years ago."

Prejudice has decreased because of the candidacy of Mitt Romney and the presidency of Barack Obama. Thirty one percent of Americans said they had an "unfavorable" view of the Mormon Church, a drop of eight percent since 2007. "Positive" views dropped as well, however, from 42% to 39% over the same time period. 

There seems little evidence that prejudice among voters will translate into the voting booth.

Read more from The Washington Post

On: Romney Redux -- The Governor’s tough sell

If the NAACP is wise, it will issue Mitt Romney an apology forthwith.

There was no cause for its members to jeer Romney as they did Wednesday. A presidential candidate should be treated with the same regard and reserve due any man who graciously attends an event. Instead, Romney was on the receiving end of conduct more suitable for a sports game. Perhaps he exhibited an overabundance of aplomb, but he was nothing but respectful when explaining his views. It is respect which should have been returned in kind.

Yet instead of an apology, the century old organization merely noted that Romney’s agenda was “at odds with what the NAACP stands for” and that they “appreciate that he was courageous and took the opportunity to speak with [them] directly.” 

Well. Romney’s remarks were a mere 25 minutes, neither extensive nor torturous enough for good will to evanesce. Polite applause would have sufficed in reinforcing what everyone knew to be true: No person present was an undecided voter. Barack Obama has been president for four years; Mitt Romney has been at his heels for nearly as long. We know who these men are. We know their positions. Anything they could possibly say we’ve heard before.

Romney at the recent NAACP Convention

But then we listened to Romney’s speech, and the last two presuppositions became cloudy. Here’s the relevant portion:

“If someone had told us in the 1950s or 1960s that a black citizen would serve as the forty-fourth president, we would have been proud and many would have been surprised. Picturing that day, we might have assumed that the American presidency would be the very last door of opportunity to be opened. Before that came to pass, every other barrier on the path to equal opportunity would surely have come down.

“Of course, it hasn’t happened quite that way. Many barriers remain. Old inequities persist. In some ways, the challenges are even more complicated than before. And across America — and even within your own ranks — there are serious, honest debates about the way forward.”

Romney then expatiated on the black unemployment rate, the heighted duration of black unemployment, the number of black youth trapped in America’s failing school system, and the degradation of black neighborhoods and families. “[Y]ou in particular,” he said, “are entitled to an answer.”

Americans can (and will) debate about how these problems came to be, why they persist and what should be done.  But step back for a moment; contained within Romney’s speech is an important conceit. At least since Barry Goldwater, African Americans have legitimately wondered whether Republicans understood the essence of what Romney said.

It has been a routine refrain since President Obama’s inauguration that one black man in public housing doesn’t mean the country has entered a post-racial eutopia. But now it seems this essential premise has been granted: African Americans face specific difficulties the rest of the country doesn’t, and are disproportionately impacted by challenges the nation faces as a whole. 

If Romney’s words were any indication, we can move past debating that premise and onto what should be done. Romney has ideas as to how this might be achieved, and like any candidate on the stump, they can be rejected or accepted come November.

Most in the black community will reject them. But there is now agreement that this is a debate worth having, and that African Americans specifically have much to gain or lose based on where the country falls.

                                                

That’s an important step forward. It’s a pity some of this subtle substance went unnoticed because of boos from the crowd. 

“The way forward”
When I last mentioned Mitt Romney’s attempt to garner black votes, I wrote that in order to broaden their base, Republicans were relegated to playing the long game. Now it appears they are gearing up for another attempt.

Let’s be honest: Romney didn’t win anyone over with his speech. Granting a premise is imperative in any debate, but it isn’t sufficient to win votes.

Still, none of this should detract from the credit Romney deserves for not treating the black vote as if it were a foregone conclusion, as if it were a monolith -- even if it is. I applaud Romney’s efforts to make inroads within the black community, and the reader should as well.

African Americans must embrace an “all hands on deck” philosophy if they wish to move forward. For any real changes to take root, more than a few of those hands must come from Republicans. 

Columnist Clarence Page Spoke at Rally for Iranian Militant Group

by Justin Elliott ProPublica, July 9, 2012, 12:32 p.m.

Update July 9, 2012: We reported last week that Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page was paid $20,000 to speak at a rally for an Iranian group designated as a terrorist organization. Page told ProPublica he planned to give back the money. Now, the Tribune has reprimanded Page, saying he violated the paper's editorial ethics code by accepting the speaking gig without approval. It also said he would not have received approval to appear at the Paris event.

"I'm pleased with that; I think it's a sensible settlement of the whole thing," Page told the Tribune. Page also weighed in on the matter in a column over the weekend.

Late last month,  syndicated columnist Clarence Page appeared at a rally in Paris in support of the Mujahadin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian group that has been lobbying Washington to be removed from the U.S. government's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Before a huge crowd waving portraits of MEK leaders Maryam and Massoud Rajavi as well as Iranian flags, Page called for the MEK to be removed from the official terrorist organization list.

Contacted about the appearance by ProPublica, Page said he has decided to give back his speaking fee for the event, as well as reimburse the cost of travel to and from France, which was paid for by a group called the Organizing Committee for Convention for Democracy in Iran.

"I thought they were simply a group of Iranian exiles who were opposed to the regime in Tehran," Page said. "I later found out they can be construed as a MEK front group, and I don't think it's worth it to my reputation to be perceived as a paid spokesman for any political cause."

Page said he was paid a fee of $20,000 and travel expenses and that he attended the June 23 event during vacation time. He said he just arrived back at work from vacation and has not yet given back the money. He did not have the text of the speech he delivered, but he told ProPublica he spoke in favor of the MEK being removed from the list of  terrorist organizations, a move he expects to occur shortly.

The MEK, which fiercely opposes the current regime in Iran, has  mounted a high-priced lobbying and legal battle to get off the terrorist list in recent years. The group was placed on the list in 1997 by the Clinton Administration, which cited its record of attacks against Iranian targets.  The group also "assassinated several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran" in the 1970s when the U.S. was allied with the Shah, according to the State Department. The MEK says it has renounced violence. A federal appeals court last month ordered the State Department to decide within four months whether the MEK should remain on the list.

Groups supporting the MEK have paid millions of dollars to attract former officials and retired military officers to appear at events supporting the group in recent years. But because the MEK is an officially designated terrorist organization, it is illegal for Americans to accept money from the MEK itself. NBC reported in March that former officials had received subpoenas as part of a federal probe "focused on whether the former officials may have received funding, directly or indirectly, from the [MEK]."

Besides Page's role as a columnist whose work is distributed by Tribune Media Services, he is also a member of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. Page has not written about Iran in his  column recently, but the Tribune editorial board regularly weighs in on foreign policy. Last month, the paper called on the Obama administration to "ratchet up the economic pressure" on Iran in the dispute over the country's nuclear program. A spokeswoman for the Tribune did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Organizers assert  that 100,000 people attended the Paris event last month, but that figure has not been independently verified. In a speech, Maryam Rajavi hailed the "unparalleled bipartisan coalition which has challenged the official policy" that labels the MEK a terrorist group.

Others attending the event last month include Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, former Bush administration official John Bolton, and several former high-ranking military officers.

"When I got involved with it, I saw the stellar list of VIPs who were also on the program, and I saw this to be another conference with another speech," Page said.

Page said the invitation to the event last month came through his agent Janet LeBrun Cosby and Bethesda-based Speakers Worldwide.

This is the promotional video produced after the event, which Page appears in around the 1:07 mark:

Correction: We incorrectly reported that Clarence Page's invitation to speak at an MEK rally came through the Harry Walker Agency. In fact, while Page has previously worked with the agency, his appearance at the event was organized by Speakers Worldwide.

On: Freedom of Speech and The Maroon Wall

by: Joshua Howell

“Statutes suppressing or restricting speech must be judged by the sometimes inconvenient principles of the First Amendment.” -- United States v. Alvarez

You likely missed it -- or were simply unconcerned -- given the political theater of June 28^th, the day The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Healthcare Act as constitutional. But ten or so minutes before that announcement was another. With a six to three vote, The Supreme Court struck down The Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized making false claims about having received military honors. Such prohibition, the court ruled, conflicts with the First Amendment’s proscription of laws which abridge the freedom of speech.  The right to lie about military accreditation now joins the rights of burning the American flag and protesting military funerals. Indeed, sometimes exhibition of speech is “inconvenient.” Who knew?

One might forgive the service member who therefore holds SCOTUS in contempt. But take it easy on those nine justices; they were only doing their job.

Whereas military recruits take oaths to “support and defend the Constitution”, it is the duty of The Supreme Court to determine what it is those military men and women are defending. It is their responsibility to interpret the Constitution’s complexities and ambiguities, and ultimately make decisions to which more than 300 million Americans will be bound.

When it comes to freedom of speech, however, there is scant room for nuance: The words “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” leaves little to the imagination. True, there are several exceptions: Fraud, true threats, child pornography, speech integral to criminal conduct and other, similar forms of speech are not protected because (to lift a quote from United States v. Alvarez) they cause “legally cognizable harm”.

But as we all know, and are sometimes loathe to admit, damaged feelings and offense, no matter how legitimate, do not constitute “legally cognizable harm”.

Still, better a government which protects freedom of speech to absurd degrees than one that lets federal and state governments pick at it with law after law. The latter would be calamitous, and would result in the erosion of our near unlimited rights to expression.

Better still, unlike the Second Amendment, which protects Americans’ right of gun ownership, any problem created by constitutionally protected speech is handled (even best handled) not by restricting speech, but by a deluge of it.

Witness what happened yesterday in College Station, Texas, when the infamous Westboro Baptist Church -- known as much for their gall as their non sequiturs -- threatened to protest the funeral of Lt. Col. Roy Tisdale, a veteran both of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a recipient of the Purple Heart.

Upon hearing of Westboro’s intent, members of the community elected to create what has become known as “The Maroon Wall,” a 600-person barrier between where Westboro would be protesting and Central Baptist Church, the site of Tisdale’s funeral. Per The Wall’s mission: “In response to their yelling, we will be silent.”

Most wore maroon, one of Texas A&M University’s school colors. It is Roy Tisdale’s alma mater.

A glimpse of The Maroon Wall
photo courtesy of Leslie Mott

With cumulous clouds providing partial cover from what is the onslaught of the Texas sun, the group lined themselves in a field which surrounded the work of beauty that is Central Baptist. Residents of nearby Bryan, Texas came. The Patriot Guard Riders, a group of motorcyclists opposed to Westboro, rode in from Austin to participate in the event.

To quote Westboro’s flyer: “Lt. Col. Tisdale gave his life for the Constitutional right of WBC to warn America. To deny us our First Amendment rights is to declare to the world that Lt. Col. Tisdale died in vain, and that America is a nation of sodomite hypocrites.”

Despite the digression about sodomite hypocrites, the relevant portion of the quote is correct. But Tisdale also gave his life for the rights of The Wall as well, which stood in solidarity with the family that day.

And while reports say Westboro didn’t show (here’s hoping they were inconvenienced), the sheer effort taken to create The Maroon Wall remains. Even if Westboro wasn’t run off by the sight of that great formation, it proved the inherent force of speech: even absent words, spoken or in print, it remains quite powerful.

Sometimes a wall of maroon suffices. That, reader, is a freedom worth protecting.

Mystery After the Health Care Ruling: Which States Will Refuse Medicaid Expansion?

by Charles Ornstein ProPublica, June 28, 2012, 12:33 p.m.

June 28: This post has been updated.

See our interactive map of how health reform could expand Medicaid in each state.

For many people without insurance, a key question raised by the Supreme Court's decision today to uphold the Affordable Care Act is whether states will decline to participate in the law's big Medicaid expansion.

Although the court upheld the law's mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance, the justices said the act could not force states to expand Medicaid to millions by threatening to withhold federal funding.

Republican leaders of some states already are saying they are inclined to say thanks, but no thanks.

Tom Suehs, the Texas Health and Human Services Executive commissioner whose state could cover an additional 1.8 million people by 2019, praised the court for giving "states more ability to push back against a forced expansion of Medicaid. The court clearly recognized that the Affordable Care Act put states in the no-win situation of losing all their Medicaid funding or expanding their programs knowing that they would face billions of dollars in extra costs down the road."

The act, signed by President Obama in March 2010, required "states to extend Medicaid coverage to non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or about $30,700 for a family of four," according to a March 2012 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. The extension was expected to cover nearly 16 million people by 2019, one of the law's main ways of reducing the ranks of the uninsured.

The 26 states that challenged the health care law together account for an estimated 8.5 million of those who would benefit from Medicaid's expansion by 2019, more than half the total, according to ProPublica's analysis of an Urban Institute report prepared for the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Stanford University health economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya wrote on Stanford's medical school blog that some states may opt out. "Cash-strapped states will almost certainly consider this option since they will ultimately be on the hook for financing at least a portion of this expansion," he wrote. "If enough states decide to deny the Medicaid expansion, this may substantially reduce the ability of ACA [the Affordable Care Act] to expand insurance coverage."

Medicaid is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to the poor and disabled, with states putting up a portion of the money and the federal government funding the rest. Each state's matching percentage is based on per capita income.

According to a separate Kaiser foundation report, "Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups."

Under the law, the federal government would cover nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion from 2014-22, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"Specifically, the federal government will assume 100 percent of the Medicaid costs of covering newly eligible individuals for the first three years that the expansion is in effect (2014-16). Federal support will then phase down slightly over the following several years, and by 2020 (and for all subsequent years), the federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs of covering these individuals. According to CBO, between 2014 and 2022, the federal government will pay $931 billion of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, while states will pay roughly $73 billion, or 7 percent."

States that challenged the law argued that it was coercive to require them to either expand Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding, a practical impossibility given the size of the program in most states. The court ruled that while it was constitutional for Congress to offer states money to expand Medicaid, it could not take away funding for their existing program if they declined, according to SCOTUSblog.

Immediately after the ruling, some Republican state officials said they were inclined to reject the new federal money, although there has been no deadline set for doing so.

In Missouri, according to The Associated Press, "House Majority Leader Tim Jones says the Republican-led Legislature will not consider the expansion. Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called the Medicaid expansion a 'break-the-bank provision.'"

The Birmingham Business Journal said that "opting out of the Medicaid expansion seems increasingly likely for Alabama 2014 though Medicaid officials said they were still reviewing the court's ruling."

After all, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said, "The health care law is an overreach by the federal government that creates more regulation, bureaucracy, and a dramatic increase in costs to taxpayers."

And South Dakota's attorney general, Marty Jackle, was likewise blunt: "I am relieved that the Act's Medicaid expansion has been declared unconstitutional and has been significantly limited by the Court."

That said, rhetoric does not always translate to action. Many Republican governors said they would not accept funds from the 2009 stimulus package, but they ended up taking the money in the end. Three governors, in Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio, turned down money to build a high-speed rail line. Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford tried to turn down federal education stimulus money, but his state Supreme Court rejected that. And former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin rejected some state energy funding, but her Legislature overruled her.

ProPublica reporter Michael Grabell contributed to this report.