In an interview with Ketchikan's KRBD, Alaska's one and only Congressman, Republican Don Young, was able to include a racial slur in comments regarding the economy and employment. Congressman Young said, "My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," he said. "It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It's all done by machine." Congressman Young is again under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. The fresh charges are that he failed to report gifts, misused campaign contributions and lied to investigators. The National Republican Party has recently acknowledged their lack of outreach to the Hispanic population, and have vowed to repair and reach out. Something tells me this wasn't part of their new program. In 1994, the colorful Congressman waved an Oosik (Penis bone of a walrus) around at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hearing. When speaking to students in Fairbanks, Young was answering questions about cutting federal funding for the arts that he said had underwritten, "photographs of people doing offensive things," and "things that are absolutely ridiculous." Asked for specifics, Young answered, "Buttf**king." Congressman Young has represented Alaska since 1973.

We all know the banking system is broken. It's easy to become pessimistic in the face of corporate and political corruption, but the system can be changed. We've done it before, and we can do it again. One pathway to genuine reform is "public banking": the establishment of banks which are owned at operated by the government, and which serve people and small businesses directly. Here's why public banking should be included in the agenda for deep and genuine financial reform. There's a working model for state banking. Reform groups like the Public Banking Institute often cite the state-owned Bank of North Dakota as a model worth emulating. The Bank was created in 1919 to "promote agriculture, commerce, and industry" and to be "be helpful to and assist in the development of... financial institutions... within the State." The Bank of North Dakota operates a little bit like the Federal Reserve. It's primarily a "bank for bankers," rather than an institution that serves customers. It does provides student loans, and individuals can deposit money, but it doesn't have ATMs or other customer service amenities. (Individual deposits make up less than 2 percent of its assets.) The Bank of North Dakota has established relationships with all 94 of the state's community banks and has helped increase their lending ability in a targeted way that supports economic growth. Local banking is desirable for many reasons, including the lenders' familiarity with their community. (For an idealized version, think of Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life.) The presence of thriving local banks also helps fight the over-centralization of the banking system. Public banking works. In North Dakota, community banking has also meant community lending. A meaningful economic recovery can't take place until banks stop exploiting low-interest Federal Reserve loans and start lending responsibly, with well-underwritten loans to both consumers and the small-to-medium sized businesses that are the engines of economic growth. A 2011 report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance shows how well North Dakota's banks did in the aftermath of the financial crisis, when compared to those of neighboring states and the nation as a whole: A joint paper from the SEIU and the Center for State Innovation called "Building State Development Banks" summarizes the argument for exporting North Dakota's model to other states. There are many kinds of public banks. State banks aren't the only public banking model worth exploring. The Public Banking Institute is also promoting the concept of county banks. Proposals for a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" have been put forward in Washington DC, from President Obama and others, since 2007. These proposals have merit, but have tended to follow the FDIC model for housing loans. These infrastructure proposals would need firm safeguards to ensure that private banks don't exploit them. Or, alternatively, they could provide loans directly, since an infrastructure lending program is urgently needed and major Wall Street institutions have not proven to be trustworthy stewards of public funds like these. "Public option" banks could help rein in runaway greed. These public banking proposals rely on a public/private partnership. Should public banks be established which directly compete with private institutions on a full-service basis? There may be merit in the idea of a "public option" bank which is available to people who feel they're being misused or ill-served by the private banking system. If private banks are sure they can do a better job than the government can, this would be their opportunity to prove it to the nation. If they're mistreating or overcharging their customers, this would create competition that could curb their excesses. Public banking can help strengthen cooperative banks, credit unions, and other non-profit institutions. Public banks would provide another avenue for strengthening and expanding the non-profit banking system of cooperatives and credit unions, too. Public banking, together with other state and national initiatives, can be directed toward increasing these institutions' role in the financial sector. We're already in the "public banking" business. Now we need to get it right. Our country already has a public bank - of sorts - in the Federal Reserve. The Fed was created by Congress and derives its power from the people.But the Fed is enmeshed with private banking interests, so it tends to serve them at the public's expense - and is egregiously mismanaged, too. We need a sound monetary and financial system. Central banks like the Fed stabilize the economy and ensure the soundness of currency. Other government banking initiatives include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for housing; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures most bank deposits; and Sallie Mae for student loans. Despite the privatized abuses in some bank-related government programs, the services they provide are valuable and remain popular among voters. We urgently need to reform the Fed. (William Greider lays out some of those reforms here). We also need to protect other government banking program from private-sector greed and abuse. We need public banking - but we need to do it right. Public banks are no more "socialistic" than schools, police, fire departments, or the military. People have been trained to believe that anything publicly-owned is "socialistic." Yet they don't feel that way about police forces, the military, the water utility, public schools, or even Medicare. Public banking's no more "socialistic" than these institutions. And public ownership's every bit as justified in banking as it is in any of these ventures. Money is a public utility, created and maintained for the common good. Come to think of it, the Federal Reserve is one more example of "socialism for the rich, 'free enterprise' for you and me." That needs to change. Public banks would not form a cartel. There's no reason to believe that public banks would collude against the public interest. States compete with one another all the time. The real abuses in our financial system have occurred when public institutions like Fannie and Freddie or Sallie Mae were privatized, not in the days when they were public. If you want to see a real cartel in action, check out the way private banks colluded with one another on the LIBOR scandal. Public banking could reduce corruption. People sometimes express the fear that public officials would be corrupted in their management of public banks. They should take another look at Wall Street's rap sheet: Investor fraud. Stock fraud. Perjury. Forgery. And that all-time favorite: Laundering money for the drug cartels that have murdered tens of thousands, sometimes by chopping their heads off. A public banking system which lent funds to private banks would also have investigative abilities that could help reduce epidemic of corruption in our banking system. The politics depends on us. Wall Street interests will oppose public banking, of course, and their lobby is overwhelmingly powerful. But banking lobbies have been defeated before. Let's hope it doesn't take another crisis - or worse - to create the political will to fight them. Public banking isn't complicated. Fundamentally, this isn't a complicated idea. It boils down to a very simple principle: We control our currency, and for too long we've ceded that control to corruptible private parties. Private-sector bankers should run banks, not the economy. Public banking can help to reinvigorate economic growth while restoring balance to our financial system.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | Attorney in same-sex marriage case says ‘very few men outlive their own fertility’ Kids are at the center of marriage, argue supporters of California’s same-sex marriage ban. But infertile opposite-sex couples can get married, opponents point out — so why not same-sex pairs? Men stay fertile till their deathbeds, said an attorney arguing against rights for same-sex couples. Confused? Consider the actual debate before the Supreme Court on March 26, 2013, in Hollingsworth vs. Perry. Justice Elena Kagan compared a ban on marriage licenses for couples over age 55 with a ban on marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Couples over 55 are unlikely to produce children, ... >> More

Chris Frates, The AtlanticA few minutes after the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding President Obama's health care law last summer, a senior adviser to Mitch McConnell walked into the Senate Republican leader's office to gauge his reaction.McConnell was clearly disappointed, and for good reason. For many conservatives, the decision was the death knell in a three-year fight to defeat reforms that epitomized everything they thought was wrong with Obama's governing philosophy. But where some saw finality, McConnell saw opportunity "” and still does.Sitting at his desk a...

Noah Rothman, MediaiteAfter losing two back-to-back national elections, there is nearly complete disarray in the party. Rejected twice after running national campaigns focused on the issue which voters said they cared most about "“ an issue which, in the abstract, should have been in their wheelhouse "“ political and opinion leaders are recommending sweeping reforms to ensure past mistakes will never be made again. This is the Republican Party in 2013, but it was also the Democratic Party of 40 years ago. In the early 1970s, after losing two straight presidential elections,...

Cathy Young, RealClearPoliticsThis claim, advanced by a cadre of feminist activists and bloggers, has been gaining mainstream currency—particularly in the wake of the nationally publicized Steubenville, Ohio rape case which exposed some very ugly attitudes and behaviors.  While no one would deny that sexual violence is a grave problem, the crusade against “the rape culture” is a dubious cure: it distorts truth, fosters anger and divisiveness instead of respect and equality, and ultimately endangers justice for all.There is, of course, some truth to the feminist argument that...

WASHINGTON -- Jim Messina, who is leading the effort by Organizing For Action to press for tougher gun laws, has a problem: his old boss. OFA, the offshoot of the Obama campaign now organized as a nonprofit organization, has made gun control its top priority, and Messina has been the public face of that effort. The president on Thursday pressed supporters to keep the pressure on by swarming congressional town halls during Congress' recess to drive the message home. Democrats have largely rallied to the cause, but a major holdout is Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who's up for reelection in 2014 and who launched the career of Messina. Or, depending on whom you ask in the Senate, it's understood to have been the other way around. "The relationship is much tighter, much closer than the typical staffer-senator relationship. In years past, whenever Senator Baucus got in the middle of a political brawl or a significant policy debate, Messina was never far behind," recalled one former senior Senate aide who knows both well. "The relationship counted for something, because I couldn't help but notice [OFA is] not running ads in Montana." That might be for the best, tactically, said another former top Senate aide who worked closely with Baucus and Messina. "Jim knows better than anyone that trying to pressure his mentor Max Baucus in his home state on guns is not smart personally or politically." Messina, when he worked with Baucus, was known to be able to speak for the senator. When President Barack Obama took office, Baucus recommended him for a high-level position. From that perch, Messina ran health care reform negotiations effectively out of Baucus' office. Baucus moved the legislation through his Finance Committee while picking up the vote of Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, giving the bill the bipartisan sheen that Obama and Messina craved. That alliance, however, hasn't been enough to move Baucus on guns. "I understand these are tough political votes ... but it's also the right thing to do, and I think there's a real political price to be paid for opposing something like a background check when over 90 percent of the country supports it," Messina said during an appearance on MSNBC Thursday. Obama has dubbed people who oppose the proposal "the 10 percent." Implementing universal background checks is at the heart of the gun control legislation Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to introduce after Easter recess. Senate Democrats are expected to overwhelmingly support the bill -- except for a minority of red state Democrats that includes Baucus. The Montana senator said he has no plans to back any new legislation aimed at curbing gun violence. "I am focusing more on enforcement of current law," Baucus told Politico. "I am going home [on Saturday.] I’ll talk to Montanans and see what my employers want." A Baucus spokesperson indicated much of the same when asked by The Huffington Post if those comments meant the senator does not support any new legislation on background checks. "Max has said he opposes the assault weapons ban. He voted against it in 2004 and would vote against it again," the spokesperson said in an email. "He will continue talking to Montanans before taking any votes on additional proposals, but in general Max has said we need to start by better enforcing the laws that are already on the books before passing new laws." Baucus enjoys an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association. A spokeswoman for Messina didn't immediately return a request for comment. Universal background checks have tremendous support among the public, with recent polling showing that 88 percent of Americans believe firearms purchases at private sales and gun shows should be subject to a background check. The majority of gun owners are also on board, with 81 percent expressing their approval for universal background checks. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the pro-gun control advocacy group chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, found that 79 percent of Montana residents favor mandatory background checks. The group noticeably left Baucus out of a $12 million ad blitz targeting senators on the fence about expanded background checks. Obama stepped up the pressure on congressional lawmakers Thursday, delivering a speech flanked by 21 women impacted by gun violence. "I ask every American to find out where your member of Congress stands on these ideas, " Obama said. "If they're not part of that 90 percent who agree that we should make it harder for a criminal or somebody with a severe mental illness to buy a gun, then you should ask them -- why not? Why are you part of the 10 percent?" "There's absolutely no reason why we can't get this done," he added.

Doesn't anyone get why CEO Marissa Mayer put the kibosh on telecommuting right now at Yahoo? It wasn't discrimination folks. You see when you're in the middle of a huge, nasty turnaround and trying to change the culture of a company -- people need to show up at work. Yeah, we all know that working virtually is the trend. In fact, teams often are dispersed around the globe. But in this case, it's not rocket science or discrimination, so get a life folks. Nothing is forever. If she is right and Yahoo can be fixed, it will save all of the jobs, and we're talking about 11,500 employees, and countless contractors and consultants. If she's wrong, there may be no jobs to worry about. But now, this CEO is often referred to as the "Stalin of Silicon Valley" in the press. So what is really going on here? Why the ensuing drama even when it's discussed among friends and colleagues in Silicon Valley? What do you think? Could it be sexism sticking up its head against this girl geek in this male dominated world? Heaven forbid, right? Not here, no it just can't be true. Silicon Valley is the home of tech, the cradle of innovation. Yeah, but it's probably so. Some like beloved Sheryl Sandberg from Facebook get somewhat of a pass, but not really. Of late, she's been vacuum cleaned every which way. The difference is that she sought it out. When she unleashed her manifesto - Lean In -- the call to action for young and old women from pillar to post, and went on television -- everything became fair game. But, maybe it's not like that for the new CEO of Yahoo, the fair haired Marissa who has her head squarely down trying to do the job she was hired to do. Maybe she'll go the press circuit after she's scored a big win for Yahoo, but not now. Remember Yahoo is beleaguered, and quite an assignment for the girl geek, or any humanoid. You know, maybe Yahoo still has some juice with its very solid content, loads of good IP and customers, and it's her job to figure it out. Aha, perhaps it's not the decrepit dinosaur that everybody takes shots at, but still it isn't perceived as the hipster place to work. Alas, once Stanford grad founder Jerry Yang sat in the ejector seat -- Yahoo's luster seemed to fade, regardless of how many Hollywood tycoons it brought into the fold. So maybe it is really time to let the girl geek have at it. Hollywood didn't work. Sorry Terry and Ross. Autodesk wasn't the right paradigm, Carol. Maybe it was quite brilliant to install the girl geek turned corporate dragon slayer. After all, she came of age at Google too, and is wickedly smart. What could be so bad? Times certainly are changing -- marriage equality is right around the corner regardless of what SCOTUS does, and innovation should not be gender based. Male coders shouldn't be acting out publicly at conferences. Whistle blowers shouldn't be chastised for calling them out as occurred last week. And maybe CEO Marissa in her own way, together with the brown-haired vixen Sheryl, individually and together are pushing Silicon Valley out of its comfort zone into gender equality. Go figure!

Parents in Dietrich, Idaho, say the word "vagina" has no place in a 10th grade science class, according to news website MagicValley.com. A small group from Dietrich, population 332, complained to the Idaho State Department of Education, which launched an official investigation of science teacher Tim McDaniel. He is accused of teaching "sex education material" in a science class, describing "inappropriate" forms of birth control, telling "inappropriate" jokes in class and showing a video clip that depicted a genital herpes infection. McDaniel said the parents even objected to his use of the word "vagina" in the lesson on human reproduction, according to MagicValley.com. At a school board meeting, Katie Norman, one of the parents who objected, reportedly demanded prior warning of sensitive topics like birth control so that she could excuse her child from the class. But McDaniel told MagicValley.com that none of the 10th graders are required to attend that day's class and that he only handles sex education because the school's health teacher won't. The teacher said he is cooperating with the investigation but denies any wrongdoing. "I've done nothing wrong," he told the website. Locals who have joined a Facebook page called "Save The Science Teacher!!" contend that conservative parents are attempting to censor topics considered controversial in the political arena but commonplace in the classroom. They promise to defend McDaniels in written letters to the state’s education department. Dietrich Superintendent Neil Hollingshead told MagicValley.com that the school board is more likely to send McDaniel a letter of reprimand than to dismiss him -- a move Hollingshead considers "highly unlikely." But McDaniel has said he will refuse to sign the letter if it arrives, and it seems that some parents will back him up. Stacy La, a member of the Facebook group, outlined the reasons for her support on the page's timeline, noting that McDaniel taught from the textbook and offered students uncomfortable with the material a chance to opt out of the lesson entirely. She offered squeamish parents their own exit strategy. La wrote, "Mr. McDaniel showed a video and let the children form their opinions. He did not push anything. If you want to be in full control of what your child learns, homeschool them. Period." The Facebook page is also bringing McDaniel support from outside his school district: I am actually pretty mortified for this poor teacher who was just doing his job, I am embarrassed for the parents who have a problem with these things being taught in a school, and I am concerned for the children whose parents object. -- Brandy Farlow from Moscow, Idaho I used to be a high school science teacher. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why is the school system not supporting this teacher for doing his job? I'm disgusted. Things like this are why I'm glad I'm not teaching any more. -- Lisa Sharktopus Harless from Morgantown, W.Va. Parental and political clashes are not uncommon when hot-button issues surface in school lessons -- from evolution to Mexican American studies. Sex education is a particularly sensitive topic, however, and parents often complain that it's too explicit or conflicts with their religious beliefs. When NPR's "Talk of the Nation" profiled New York City's sex ed curriculum, the segment explained how outside experts consider local politics to find the delicate balance between what's acceptable, what's taboo and what students need to hear. Warning: This link might discuss vaginas.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, released a television ad on Thursday featuring family members of four victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last December. The ad features the families of two first-graders and two teachers killed at Sandy Hook, out of the total 20 children and six adult staffers killed that day. The family members in the ad are Neil Heslin, father of first-grader Jesse Lewis; Chris and Lynn McDonnell, parents of first-grader Grace McDonnell; Jillian Soto, sister of teacher Vicky Soto; and Terri and Gilles Rousseau, parents of teacher Lauren Rousseau. "I want to prevent any other family from having to go through what we're going through," Chris McDonnell says in the ad. "Don't let the memory of Newtown fade without doing something real," Terri Rousseau says next. The ad displays the words "Connecticut can save lives" and calls for comprehensive background checks, a limit on high-capacity magazines and an assault weapons ban. It is the first to include Newtown victims' family members in a call for universal background checks for gun sales, which will be a component of the gun control legislation being introduced in the Senate. The ads will air on cable and broadcast television in the Hartford, Conn., area and specifically target the state's legislature to enact better gun violence prevention. More than 120 actions are planned around the United States on Thursday for a day of advocacy on gun violence, including one at the White House. Heslin, Rousseau and the McDonnells will attend the White House event. Watch the ad above.

Jon Stewart gave the Obama administration a lashing on Wednesday, accusing the president of failing wounded veterans. And on this one issue, he explained, there are no more fingers to point at Republicans. Revealing that the number of veterans waiting over a year for benefits has grown a mind-blowing 2000% during Obama's tenure, Stewart pulled no punches: "That is fucking criminal." He went on to show that the failure isn't a result of obstruction or funding, but of organization and oversight. Central to the problem seems to be that the VA still keeps track of most patient records on paper, due to the the Department of Defense using a different – incompatible – spreadsheet program. "I swear this is true," Jon interjected while laying out that almost unbelievable fact. He then pointedly argued that this is one area where the president could simply make a decision, lead and have a positive impact on the treatment of wounded veterans. "If you're making a case that government has a meaningful role to play in improving people's lives, then when you're not obstructed from doing what you want, you better f*cking bring it." Watch the clip above.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be struck down. There's no doubt that it's discriminatory, unconstitutional and impacts LGBTQ communities in ways that are problematic and damaging. This damage is particularly drastic and tangible in the context of immigration, social security, bereavement benefits, and other federal programs that are distributed to LGBTQ people unequally, if at all. However, while getting caught up in the excitement of what's going on at the Supreme Court, it's important to ask why these benefits and basic rights are tied to marriage at all. It's important to ask why healthcare and federal programs that are ostensibly meant to keep us healthy, safe, and out of poverty are often only fully accessible to those who choose to get married. And if in order to get these benefits, marriage is required, how that requirement marginalizes and disadvantages people who cannot or choose not to get married, in ways that LGBTQ people are currently marginalized and disadvantaged. My personal opinion is that all people should have the freedom to structure their relationships in whichever way they chose, whether the government is involved or not, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. I also believe, though, that things like healthcare, federal anti-poverty measures, housing, and other forms of economic justice should not be tied to whether or not a person chooses to marry, a position which has been articulated in great detail by scholars like Nancy Polikoff and groups like Beyond Marriage. While the debate around marriage is an important one, it's also important to recognize that LGBTQ justice is not just, or even primarily, about marriage--especially for those people who are still struggling to have their most basic needs met. According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), trans communities in particular experience disproportionately high levels of poverty, homelessness, lack of basic healthcare and unemployment because of systemic discrimination that our current laws, for the most part, do not recognize or protect us from. Trans people all over the country, in every age group, are becoming more visible, and with that visibility, experiencing a backlash against their ability to access accommodations and systems as basic and important as bathrooms, comprehensive healthcare, safe schools, or freedom from over-criminalization and policing. Not to mention, the serious epidemic of murder and assault, particularly against trans women of color, that has gone largely unnoticed by mainstream media. This type of animus is also responsible for the disproportionately high suicide rates among trans youth and adults that exist not just because of bullying in school, but because of pervasive and suffocating everyday discrimination, legally and interpersonally, that seeks to invalidate and undermine what people know to be the most fundamental truths about who they are and how they want to be recognized. Hopefully DOMA will be struck down. Hopefully we'll be able to wake up to a world soon where at least one federal law that hurts LGBTQ people is no longer on the books. But in debating what justice and equality for LGBTQ communities looks like, how historic this moment is, and what other historic accomplishments are yet to be had, it's important for us to consciously support all types of relationships (married or not) and all forms of justice, particularly racial and economic justice, within LGBTQ communities. We also can't forget that there is still an overwhelming number of LGBTQ people whose most basic needs are not being met and who will still need all of the vigorous attention and enthusiasm that marriage equality has received from so many people in the past several months, even if DOMA is struck down.

PHOENIX -- An Arizona House panel late Wednesday approved a measure targeting transgendered people who want to use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, voting along party lines to advance a bill that protects business owners who bar the practice. The 7-4 vote concluded an hours-long parade of transgendered and straight people who tried to persuade the panel to oppose Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. John Kavanagh's bill. The crowd broke out in chants of "shame, shame, shame" as the vote on the bill sponsored by the conservative Republican passed. Kavanagh had radically altered the bill after being faced with an outcry from advocacy groups, but that wasn't enough to keep about 200 opponents from attending a nearly 7-hour long hearing that concluded with several hours of testimony on the bill. The original bill would have made it a crime for a transgendered person to use a bathroom other than his or her birth sex. The new bill instead seeks to shield businesses from civil or criminal liability if they ban people from restrooms that don't match their birth sex. It was prompted by the recent passage of a Phoenix anti-discrimination ordinance that social conservatives said prevented businesses from keeping transgendered people out of locker rooms, showers and bathrooms. Kavanagh said it would subject businesses to criminal charges and expose little children to "naked men in women's locker rooms and showers," But the parade of witnesses Wednesday, many transgendered, said that was not only fear-based but just flat-out wrong. "Search as you might there is not enough evidence that there is any risk in allowing a person with gender identity to use a restroom of their choice," said Claire Swinford, a Tucson resident who was born a man but identifies and dresses as a woman. In fact, she said, being dressed as a woman actually puts her at physical risk from being attacked by a man while trying to use a men's restroom. "What your bill attempts to do is sacrifice my personal safety for somebody else's sense of discomfort." Patty Medway, a transgendered woman who was born a man, said she's been using female bathrooms for years without a problem. She called on Kavanagh to back away from his effort. "I've been using washrooms for 15 years and I don't want to be discriminated against, and I'm scared to go to a male washroom," she said. Maureen Robinson, a Tucson woman, called barring transgendered people from using bathrooms silly. "It has been a non-issue, it will continue to be a non-issue, unless this bill becomes law," she said. But Kavanagh, backed by the six other Republicans on the bill, quickly advanced the bill anyway. It now goes to the full House for consideration after a routine review. Only one person testified in favor of the bill. He said the Phoenix ordinance trampled on the rights the business community. "I don't believe that the opposing side should be able to impose their views on others," said Nohl Rosen, a Phoenix small business owner. "The way I feel, this is just the liberal left forcing their views on the rest of us" Democrats on the panel all voted against advancing the bill, which one called "over the top." "Frankly. I think this is an embarrassment to our state,' said Rep. Stefanie Mach of Tucson. Kavanagh began the hearing by telling the crowd his original bill went too far, and that he had completely re-written it after hearing criticism, including some from his own caucus in the House. "What I'm doing is pre-empting these cities from prosecuting businesses that say they want separate (facilities)," he said. "I'm basically resetting the clock to before Phoenix passed the law."-

WASHINGTON -- Dale Peterson, an Alabama Republican state official famous for flaunting his rifle in campaign ads promising to be tough on crime, was arrested Wednesday and charged with shoplifting a can of cashews. The arrest, first reported by Yellowhammer.com, marked the second time in six months that Peterson has been accused of stealing. His new arrest occurred at a Sam's Club, where police said employees watched Peterson eat a can of cashews in the store, then place the empty can back on a shelf. Store security guards confronted Peterson on his way out. He was released from custody after posting $1,000 bond. Peterson was charged in October with stealing paper towels and beer from a Walmart. Employees said he pushed his way through the checkout line without paying for the items in his cart, according to police. Peterson later said the incident was "a mistake." Peterson's arrests are noteworthy in part because he made national news in 2010 for his tough-talking stance on crime during an unsuccessful run for Alabama agriculture commissioner. In a campaign ad that quickly went viral, Peterson suggested his opponents were "thugs and criminals," and accused them of "stealing yard signs in the dark," and "bragging about receiving illegal money on Facebook." Lifting a rifle to his shoulder, Peterson said, "We're Republicans, we should be better than that," and promised to "name names and take no prisoners" if elected. As of Wednesday, the ad had been viewed on YouTube more than 2.6 million times. Two years after that campaign loss, his wife Kathy Peterson campaigned for public service commissioner using an ad featuring her husband and his rifle. In that ad, Peterson flashed the gun in a parking lot and warned, "I'll be the one looking after Kathy's yard signs." The Petersons own a llama ranch in Shelby County. Earlier this year, Dale Peterson was hired at the state Agriculture Commission, sparking controversy given his heated rhetoric about fellow Republicans during the 2010 campaign. A Birmingham, Ala., talk radio host called Peterson "a useless person" filling a useless position at the state agency. UPDATE 2:16AM: Shortly before midnight on Wednesday, Peterson used his Twitter account to allege that his arrest was a conspiracy. In a series of tweets, Peterson pointed fingers at conservative Alabama political news site Yellowhammer.com and Republican Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard. Sometimes there are coincidences. Sometime there are conspiracies. And sometimes there are just facts. #SomethingAintRight— Dale Peterson (@Dale_Peterson) March 28, 2013 Who (other than me!) would be arrested for a handful of cashews? And how would Peterson-haters know so soon? I hadn't even been released yet— Dale Peterson (@Dale_Peterson) March 28, 2013 How, exactly, did @yhpolitics know about my day & my handful of cashews before my wife did?— Dale Peterson (@Dale_Peterson) March 28, 2013 In national politics, we have establishment and media in cahoots. Think that doesn't happen in AL? See: @yhpolitics & Mike Hubbard— Dale Peterson (@Dale_Peterson) March 28, 2013 Peterson then laid out his version of Wednesday's events, writing in three back-to-back tweets, "I picked up some cashews when I got to Sams this afternoon. Ate a handful. Put them in my cart & kept shopping. an hour later, when I went to checkout, I put the cashews back (forgetting I had eaten a few), purchased $700 of merchandise & went to jail. It wasn't right, but it wasn't intentional... [Yellowhammer.com] wants you to believe otherwise. Again - Consider your source." Reached for comment about Peterson's allegation, Yellowhammer.com founder Cliff Sims told HuffPost early Thursday, "when other people are busy making a fool of themselves, I try not to get in their way." Another Alabama political reporter, Brandon Moseley, tweeted cautious support for Peterson Thursday. @dale_peterson It sounds rational to me Dale, but after 2 of these incidents maybe it is time to let Kathy do all the shopping.— Brandon Moseley (@Brandonm2222) March 28, 2013

WASHINGTON -- Immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants may not be the bogeyman many Republicans think it is, GOP strategist Ed Gillespie and pollster John McLaughlin said Wednesday, based on focus groups with conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina. Resurgent Republic, a GOP group led by Gillespie, released information on Thursday from focus groups conducted earlier this month in Greenville, S.C., and Des Moines, Iowa. In Des Moines, they talked to self-identified conservatives who caucused last year. In Greenville, they spoke to Republicans who voted in the past two GOP primaries. Republican voters in the group seemed open to learning more about immigration policy. When they hear the concept of a pathway to citizenship explained, they don't necessarily oppose it. And if immigration reform is going to happen, they would rather it be under the leadership of fellow conservatives such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), than President Barack Obama. "The instinctive resistance to immigration reform amongst Republican primary voters seems like it may be giving way to an instinctive resignedness to it," Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman and counselor to President George W. Bush, told reporters in a briefing. For one thing, many Republicans outside the Beltway don't know what a pathway to citizenship is, much less whether they support or oppose it, according to McLaughlin and Gillespie. "When you bring up the phrase 'pathway to citizenship,' they don't know what it means," McLaughlin said. "There's no reaction." In both focus groups, the Republicans didn't seem to disagree with broad proposals that have been put forward in Congress, including allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States and eventually become citizens. Such a measure will be included in the bill to be proposed next month by the so-called "gang of eight" in the Senate. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said last week he would support allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens eventually. But Paul balked at the term "pathway to citizenship," saying it was unhelpful and amounted to "amnesty" to many people. Among Republicans in politics, that might be true -- a number of GOP members of Congress have said so -- but among voters, the phrasing isn't so important, according to McLaughlin and Gillespie's findings. Gillespie said he would like to do more focus groups and ask people what they consider amnesty, since the label is so often bounced around. His suspicion is "they wouldn't describe this," he said. That means Republicans would have to educate the public, since there's no quick phrase that explains their position. "That would be good to find that word, and would be helpful," Gillespie said. "It may not be doable. It may be that sometimes you do have to beat the bumper sticker with the one-pager, and that may be the case here." When the pollsters laid out more information, voters were receptive to what would be considered a pathway to citizenship, McLaughlin said. They asked members of the focus groups to choose one of two statements on immigration that best matched their views. The first was the more restrictionist take; the second was along the lines of the gang of eight plan. McLaughlin said all but one person said they preferred the second. Immigration: Statement 1 A Republican candidate who believes offering citizenship to illegal immigrants is amnesty, regardless of the conditions attached. This candidate supports deporting all illegal immigrants because they are a drain on our nation, our hospitals, our school system, and our tax dollars. Further, by simply being here illegally, they are already breaking the law, and therefore should be deported. Enforcing the laws sends a clear message to others thinking about coming to the United States illegally and it is the only way to stop illegal immigration. Immigration: Statement 2 A Republican candidate who believes the immigration system is broken and reforms are needed that respect the rule of law and grow the economy. The solution is not easy. It's not practical for the federal government to break up families and deport every undocumented immigrant. The first priority should be to secure the border. Once that is accomplished, undocumented immigrants should be allowed to earn citizenship if they pass a criminal background check, pay a fine, pay current and back taxes, learn English and go to the back of the line, a process that will take 10 years. McLaughlin said the word "impractical" seemed to come up frequently when discussing deportation as the only solution to dealing with 11 million undocumented immigrants, along with concerns over splitting up families. So long as certain requirements were met, including border security, most members of the focus groups said they did not view an eventual pathway to citizenship as amnesty. In fact, some remarked after choosing between the two statements that a 10-year process sounded overly long, he said. "Why not sooner?" on person asked, according to McLaughlin. Their findings on Republicans, although narrow, seem to align with polling. A survey released last week from the Public Religion Research Institute found that 53 percent of Republicans supported the concept of a pathway to citizenship. McLaughlin and Gillespie said the politicians who back immigration reform will be key. In Iowa, focus group members repeatedly brought up Rubio, a member of the gang of eight. His participation and that of other conservatives will help the process, Gillespie said. "I don't know that they drive conservative interest so much as they provide reassurance," Gillespie said. "They provide people with, 'Maybe we should take another look at this?'"

George Will, Washington PostAs America tiptoes toward a fourth intervention in an opaque and uncontrollable conflict "” now Syria, after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya "” Webb's words require two minor modifications: Obama has demonstrated a power, not an authority; only the Constitution authorizes. And, as Webb understands, Obama has been able to do so only because Congress, over many years, has become too supine to wield its constitutional powers. Webb, a Virginia Democrat who declined to seek a second Senate term, vents his dismay in the essay "Congressional...

Ezra Klein, BloombergPresident Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act celebrated its third birthday last weekend. This particular anniversary was a big deal, because it was often unclear whether the law would reach it.In the first place, it was imperiled by the Supreme Court; in the second, by Republicans’ promise to kill it if they won the White House in 2012. Over the past year, Obamacare survived both challenges, and next year it will begin its core mission of insuring tens of millions of Americans.

David Harsanyi, Human EventsP.J. O'Rourke once remarked, "Feeling good about government is like looking on the bright side of any catastrophe. When you quit looking on the bright side, the catastrophe is still there." With all the doom and gloom free-market advocates must be feeling these days, there's one truth that should bolster their resolve about the future: The catastrophe will still be there.Conventional wisdom says that Republicans need a major attitude adjustment on cultural and social views in both substance and tone. That may very well be true. But the concern from Democrats regarding the...

Adam Serwer, Mother JonesEven with the usual caveats about reading too much into questioning at a Supreme Court hearing, the big takeaway from this week’s oral arguments on gay marriage was the reluctance of several justices to impose a national standard on an issue that Americans have seriously debated for only a few years. The questioning during the case concerning California’s Proposition 8, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling authorizing gay marriage, suggests the Court is hesitant to prevent states from going their own way on same-sex marriage. That raises big questions...

Thomas Edsall, New York TimesIf the Republican Party concedes defeat in the culture war, as a number of commentators on the right and the left argue it should, what what will happen to the conservative coalition? Can hard-line stands on social issues be set aside?On one side of the intraparty battle stands Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has suggested again and again over the past week that party leaders need to reduce the salience of culturally divisive issues. “We don’t have time to divide our party. We’ve got to go back to welcoming anyone who walks...

Arthur Laffer & Stephen Moore, WSJYou can tell a lot about prosperity in America by observing the places people are moving to and where they are packing up and moving from. New Census Bureau data on metropolitan areas indicate that the South and the Sunbelt regions continue to grow, while the Northeast and Midwest continue to shrink.Among the 10 fastest-growing metro areas last year were Raleigh, Austin, Las Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte, Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas. All of these are in low-tax, business-friendly red states. Blue-state areas such as Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Providence and Rochester were among the...

BOSTON, March 27 (Reuters) - Boston Mayor Tom Menino, a Democrat who has run the city for almost two decades, will not seek a sixth term, the Boston Globe reported on its website Wednesday night. Menino will announce his decision at a Thursday afternoon news conference, the newspaper said. Staff at the mayor's office could not be reached for immediate comment. The 70-year-old mayor was hospitalized for a month last year for a virus and back pain that cut short an Italian vacation. A decision not to seek re-election would set the stage for Boston's most competitive mayoral race since 1993, when Menino first won the office. So far, only one candidate, city councilor John Connolly, has declared an intention to run, though observers said aspirants may have held off jumping into the race, waiting to see if Menino would seek re-election. (Reporting by Scott Malone; Editing by Philip Barbara)