GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH - FMR US PRES DEAD AT 94 (R.I.P.)

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH - FORMER US PRES DEAD AT 94 (R.I.P.):

BORN - JUNE 12, 1924 (MASSACHUSETTS)
DIED - NOV 30, 2018 (TEXAS)

SERVED AS 43rd VICE-PRES - 1981 to 1989

SERVED AS 41st PRES - 1989 to 1993.


Post Sources: CNN, Wikipedia, Youtube


Congressional leaders announced that an arrival ceremony will be held for Bush on Monday at 5 p.m. ET. The public will then be invited to pay their respects from 7:30 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. Wednesday. The statement said that the Bush family will provide additional details regarding arrangements beyond the ceremony at the Capitol.

GEORGE W. BUSH RETOOLS JEB'S CAMPAIGN (HITS TRUMP)

GEORGE W. BUSH RETOOLS JEB'S CAMPAIGN:

BUT IS IT TOO LATE??

DURING HIS SPEECH GW HIT BACK AT DONALD TRUMP & DEFENDED IRAQ WAR RECORD.

Sources:  CNN, Daily Mail, YouTube

*** George W. Bush:  "President Shouldn't Be Someone Who Mirrors And Inflames Our Frustrations"

~ Story highlights:

• George W. Bush told voters in South Carolina that his brother has the "experience and character to be a great president."
• "I'm proud of his candidacy," Bush said

George W. Bush told voters here Monday that "we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our frustration" -- a clear swipe at Donald Trump during a campaign rally for his brother, Jeb Bush.

In his most political speech since he left office in 2009, George W. Bush said voters should choose a candidate who is "measured and thoughtful" over the loudest and angriest man in the room.

"I understand that Americans are angry and frustrated but we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our anger and frustration," Bush said. "We need someone that can fix the problems that cause our anger and frustration, and that's Jeb Bush."

Bush called the 2016 campaign a "serious election for a serious job," in a 20-minute speech that was both sober and at times light-hearted.

"I'm proud of his candidacy," Bush said about his brother. "I came here for two reasons -- one, because I care deeply about Jeb, and two, because I care deeply about our country."

The former president pointed to the abundant "name-calling" in the 2016 election -- an apparent reference to the punches thrown between Jeb Bush and Trump in recent months -- and joked that according to their father, George H.W. Bush, "labels are for soup cans." 

"(The) presidency is a serious job that requires sound judgment and good ideas," Bush said. 

Although the former president did not once mention Trump's name in his remarks, the implicit message was clear: 

Trump is not a serious candidate.

"Strength is not empty rhetoric, it is not bluster," Bush said, but rather based on"integrity and character." 

"In my experience, the strongest person usually isn't the loudest in the room," he added.

In a speech that was largely centered around national security and terrorism, Bush reflected on the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- and the "tough calls" he had to make in the days that followed — as he presented his brother as the most "measured and thoughtful" candidate in the GOP pack. 

"When Americans woke up on September 11, we did not know that the world was forever changed that day," Bush said. 

He urged voters here to "look for a candidate who has genuine respect for the United States military (and) who will support them on the battlefield and when they return home."

The long-running tensions between Jeb Bush and Trump boiled over on Saturday at the Republican debate in Greenville, when Trump attacked George W. Bush's national security record. 

The New York real estate mogul called the former president's decision to go to war in Iraq a "big fat mistake."

Jeb Bush hit back with force. 

"My dad is the greatest man alive, in my mind. While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe and I'm proud of what he did," he said.

Trump took things one step further, saying it was under George W. Bush's watch that the World Trade Centers in Manhattan fell on 9/11.

"That's not keeping us safe," the New Yorker said, as the audience booed loudly in disapproval. 

Since leaving Washington in 2009 after eight years in the White House, Bush has not shown interest in being in the public spotlight or playing a leadership role within the Republican Party. 

His visit to North Charleston comes as other members of the Bush clan have also started to play a more active role in Jeb Bush's presidential campaign. In New Hampshire, Bush's mother and former first lady, Barbara Bush, campaigned with her younger son. 

On Monday, George W. Bush also discussed life after the White House, which he lightheartedly referred to as "the after life."

"Laura and I loved our years in Washington, but we really don't miss it too much," he said, bringing the audience to laughter. 

He joked that the couple now spends a lot of time on their ranch in Texas, and that that as tree farmers, he still gets opportunities to practice his "stump speech."

He also quipped about his new hobby of painting: "Let me assure you, I know that the signature's worth more than the painting."

There were plenty of attendees at the North Charleston Coliseum who said their main motivation for coming to Jeb Bush's rally Monday night was to see an ex-president in person. 

Sharon Hickey, a New Hampshire resident who rents a home in South Carolina for a part of the year, said it was "wonderful" to see George W. Bush campaign for his brother. 

"We're honored to be here to see, to be in the presence of, a former President," Hickey said. 

Joe Kelley, a retired fighter fighter from Boston who owns a second home in Murrells Inlet, is currently undecided but leaning towards Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. 

As he waited to George W. Bush to take the stage, he said he thought the ex-President did a "fine enough job" in the White House.

"In my life time I've seen one President in person, Bill Clinton," Kelley said. "Just to see a president in person -- I think it would be nice."

ARIEL SHARON'S 60-Minutes Interview: Feb 26, 1928 - Jan 11, 2014 (R.I.P.)

#SHARON

ARIEL SHARON; Born: Ariel Scheinermann, February 26, 1928, in Kfar Malal just outside of TEL AVIV.

Died: January 11, 2012, at a Hospital near TEL AVIV.

Former ISRAELI Prime Minister ARIEL SHARON is dead at the age of 85.

SHARON a Tel Aviv native, survived the last 8 years of his life in a Coma.

Prime Minister SHARON was a WAR Hero, who supported expanding ISRAEL'S borders and helping JEWISH Settlers.

His death was met with both Tears & Cheers from around the world.

In 2002 ARIEL SHARON was interviewed by 60-Minutes Journalist LESLIE STAHL.

During this interview SHARON stated that he felt NO HATRED toward anyone, including former Palestinian leader YASSER ARAFAT, but loved ISRAEL with all his heart.

SHARON also expressed deep regret for NOT having Killed YASSER ARAFAT when he had the chance to do so.

Last Saturday Pres OBAMA along with other World Leaders, publicly offered his Condolences to SHARON'S Family & to the people of ISRAEL.

R.I.P.






ARTICLE: "Ariel Sharon, Former Prime Minister Of Israel, Dies At 85"


Ariel Sharon's life was one of dramatic highs and lows. As a soldier, he was both a war hero and a national disgrace. As a politician, he was a brazen leader who fought for Israel’s security, but became despised for withdrawing unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and offering Palestinians a state of their own.

His son, Gilad Sharon, announced his death Saturday, saying "he went when he decided to go."

Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement that he will lead the U.S. delegation to Israel for Sharon's funeral, which was scheduled for Monday near his ranch in the Negev Desert.

In a statement released by the White House, President Obama called Sharon "a leader who dedicated his life to the state of Israel."

"We reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel's security and our appreciation for the enduring friendship between our two countries and our two peoples," Mr. Obama said. "We continue to strive for lasting peace and security for the people of Israel, including through our commitment to the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security."

The man Israel knew as "Arik" began serving as the nation's prime minister in March 2001. A highly controversial figure as both a longtime political and military leader, Sharon was also known as "the bulldozer" for his aggressive style.

Short and burly -- he was 5-foot-7 and weighed well over 250 pounds before his debilitating stroke in 2006 -- Sharon seemed larger than life. Proud and defiant, he liked to remind Israelis that he fought in every one of the country's five wars since its founding more than half a century ago.

Born in 1928 to Russian immigrants, Sharon first fought in the Jewish militia whose founding preceded statehood in 1948. Sharon then rose swiftly through the ranks of the Israeli army, making his name on the battlefield as he went. His bold advance across the Suez Canal helped turn the tide of the 1973 Mideast war.

But Sharon also masterminded Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The unapproved military strike stopped Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization from using Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, but it also resulted in the massacre of hundreds of innocent Palestinians.

An Israeli commission found Sharon indirectly responsible and in early 1983, he was removed from his post as defense minister. His political future seemed doomed, but he would gradually resurrect his career, serving in parliament and holding a variety of cabinet posts.

Sharon defied international protests, leading a push to build dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. But after his party's election defeat in 1999, Sharon devoted more of his time to his sheep farm in southern Israel.

Failed peace talks and a Palestinian uprising, however, would draw him back onto the political stage. In 2001, Sharon was elected prime minister in a stunning landslide.

It was in his second term that Sharon stunned observers across the world -- including his domestic allies -- by offering Palestinians statehood and classifying Israel's rule over them an "occupation."

Prior to withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and giving 1.3 million Palestinians a degree of autonomy after decades of Israeli rule, Sharon had always maintained a contrarily hard line.

As a member of parliament, he had never voted in favor of any of Israel's peace agreements with neighboring Arab states. He consistently refused to shake the hand of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who he called a murderer and a liar.

Sharon was a founding member and former head of the conservative Likud party. But in 2005, he broke away from the party and founded a new centrist party, Kadima ("Forward").

On Saturday, former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted Sharon's politics in a statement offering their condolences.

"Ariel Sharon gave his life to Israel - to bring it into being, to sustain and preserve it, and at the end of his long service, to create a new political party committed to both a just peace and lasting security," the Clintons said. "It was an honor to work with him, argue with him, and watch him always trying to find the right path for his beloved country."

In January 2006, Sharon's career was cut short when he suffered a massive stroke.

Ehud Olmert, the deputy prime minister and fellow Kadima party member, was confirmed as acting prime minister. Before suffering the incapacitating stroke, Sharon enjoyed enormous popularity and a wide lead in the polls. His Kadima party went on to win the largest number of seats in the March 2006 elections.

Supporters viewed Sharon as a leader who worked toward peace without compromising Israel's security. Many Israelis also consider him a war hero who helped defend the country during some of its greatest struggles.

Sharon's critics in Israel, however, say he undermined the peace process and surrendered too much security in exchange for peace with the Gaza pullout.

The divergent views on Sharon extended to the White House. Ronald Reagan, writing in his autobiography "An American Life," called then-defense minister Sharon "a bellicose man who seemed to be chomping at the bit to start a war."

In 2003, however, President George W. Bush referred to him as "a man of peace."

On Saturday, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement saying that Ban was "saddened" by Sharon's death.

"The Secretary-General calls on Israel to build on the late Prime Minister's legacy of pragmatism to work towards the long overdue achievement of an independent and viable Palestinian state, next to a secure Israel," the statement read. "At this time of national mourning, the Secretary-General renews the commitment of the United Nations to work alongside the Government and the people of Israel for peace and security."



Sources: 60-Minutes, AP, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Youtube

George W. Bush Visits Africa & Hugs BLACK Children; Romney Would NEVER Do That!

Former President Bush and wife Laura visit Africa to promote initiative to fight cervical, breast cancer

George W. Bush and Laura Bush wrapped up a week-long trip to Africa Friday, where they visited Zambia and Botswana promoting an initiative to fight cervical cancer and breast cancer in the countries.

As part of the charity initiative the Bushes helped open medical centers providing cancer screenings, visited sick children at an orphanage, and met with Peace Corps members, according to the George W. Bush Presidential Center.

The couple returned to Texas on Friday, Bush's 66th birthday. Dozens of photos from the trip were recently released on the Center's website.

The Bushes spent Independence Day in Lusaka, Zambia at the University Teaching Hospital, announcing a new health research center. "On our country's birthday, it is important to remember the blessings of freedom and the blessings of being an American, and to give back," Bush said during remarks at the hospital, according to the website.

The $3 million women's health initiative, called Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, is a partnership between the George W. Bush Institute, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, UNAIDS and Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Since leaving office the former president has turned his attention to health issues in Africa -- which he calls a "labor of love" -- raising some $85 million for cervical cancer programs, Catholic Online reported.

Zambia has the second highest number of cervical cancer cases in the world, and many of the women are also living with HIV.

"The saddest thing of all is to know a lady's life has been saved from AIDS but died from cervical cancer," Bush said in a statement announcing the health program.

During his presidency, Bush launched an initiative to fight HIV/AIDS in sub-Sahara Africa.


View Larger Map


Sources: NY Daily News, Political Articles, The Bush Center, TV2Africa, US News, Youtube, Google Maps

Vern Buchanan Accused Of Federal Campaign Finance Violations (Read FEC Reports)

Powerful Congressman accused of campaign finance violations

Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan, a self-made Florida millionaire, is only in his third term in Congress, but he already is in charge of fundraising for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, and he sits on the powerful House Ways and Means committee.

But all that could be jeopardized. Federal investigations underway could result in Buchanan serving his next term behind bars.

CNN has confirmed there are no fewer than four congressional and federal investigations into Buchanan's business practices, his campaign finances and his alleged attempt to try to stop a witness from talking.

Now that witness is stepping forward in an exclusive interview with CNN.

Buchanan's former business partner says the congressman schemed to launder money from his car dealerships into his campaign coffers, and then tried to get others to cover it up.

Many of the questions surrounding Buchanan go back to his auto dealerships in Florida where he made his millions, and back to the days when he worked with his former business partner Sam Kazran.

Their partnership started at what is now a weed-filled lot, the former North Jacksonville Hyundai dealership. Eventually they owned four dealerships together.

"I respected him," Kazran says of their early years together. "I believed him."
But Kazran says he was naive, and that he soon found out the man he believed in was interested in only two things: money and power.

"Mr. Buchanan is a very selfish person, and in my opinion people who go to Congress have got to do good for the people they represent," Kazran says.

Kazran presented to CNN the same information, documents and testimony he has given to federal investigators. The two men had a falling out over their finances, and they've been suing each other for years. Buchanan says Kazran is a disgruntled partner and has lied about what happened.

At the center of Kazran's allegations is a cash swap scheme used to finance some of Buchanan's campaigns. He says employees were forced to write checks, then were reimbursed with cash drawn from Buchanan's car dealerships.

"It was to a point where I said, 'Chief, we can't give you this kind of money. At which point he said, 'Just run it through the corporation,'" Kazran said. "What he said to me was 'Get people to write a check to the campaign and then pay them back through the corporation.'"

Kazran did, and he was soon calling in managers, salesman, even assistants. People who never gave money to campaigns were suddenly writing big checks to Buchanan for Congress and, according to Kazran, getting reimbursed from the dealership.

It added up to almost $70,000 at Kazran's dealership alone, he said.

"I remember one of the partners jokingly saying, 'Boss, you have all the money in the world. Why do you want us to pay you the money?' And he said, 'Well, it doesn't look good if it's coming from me.'"

Kazran took his detailed allegations to the Federal Elections Commission, which was already looking into Buchanan's campaign finances. Investigators there wanted to know not only about how the cash-swap scheme was set up, but if the congressman knew about it.

Kazran says there is no question the congressman knew all about it.
The FEC's initial report found "reason to believe" that Buchanan "knowingly and willfully violated" federal election laws.

Read the initial FEC report (pdf).

But in a later report the FEC pulled back, saying it found credibility problems with both Kazran and Buchanan and not enough corroborating evidence to back up Kazran's testimony.

The FEC then dropped the investigation into Buchanan, stating, "While there is some other evidence in the record that is consistent with Kazran's general allegations, other evidence supports Buchanan's denials or is ambiguous."

Read the FEC report (pdf).

The FEC eventually fined Kazran $5,000 in a settlement because he admitted reimbursing employees for campaign contributions. Kazran has never disputed his involvement, but he says he did it because Buchanan told him to.

While the congressman has said the later FEC report proves he's innocent, the findings at the FEC were more convoluted, stating it came "close to supporting a finding that it is more likely than not" that Buchanan violated the law.


And that's where things get much more serious for the congressman.

During the FEC probe, Buchanan pushed to settle a lawsuit Kazran had brought against him. At the last minute, with a $2.9 million settlement offer from Buchanan dangling in front of him, Kazran says he was given an affidavit to sign.

According to Kazran, the congressman and his attorneys were asking him to sign a statement that was a lie, that Buchanan knew nothing about the campaign cash swap.

Kazran says Buchanan and his team were trying to force him to lie about Buchanan's role in the campaign cash scheme in exchange for the nearly $3 million cash settlement, money which Kazran says he desperately needed, as his finances were in trouble and his wife was suffering from cancer and was undergoing expensive medical treatments.

"A lot of the language of it was really to distance himself...," said Kazran. "In short it said that Mr. Buchanan had nothing to do with it."

Kazran's lawyer, Robert Stok, says it was clearly an effort to lean on Kazran when he was vulnerable.

"He was holding the settlement in escrow," Stok says. "He basically said, 'We can settle, but there's one little thing remaining. All you have to do is sign this affidavit. We release the settlement and everything will be rosy for you.'"
Kazran refused to sign and took the affidavit to federal investigators.

Now, CNN has learned that Buchanan is being investigated for attempting to tamper with a witness in a federal investigation.

After CNN's repeated requests for interviews were ignored, CNN decided to find Buchanan as he emerged from a hearing.

Buchanan would not respond fully to any questions and quickly walked away from CNN's camera. When asked if he tried to get Kazran to sign the affidavit, Buchanan responded "No, no, no, no. No I didn't," adding that he needed to get to another meeting, and that CNN should contact his office.

When asked if he used the affidavit to hold up the $3 million settlement with Kazran, Buchanan replied: "No."

In a recent report, released quietly several weeks ago, the Office of Congressional Ethics wrote: "There is substantial reason to believe that Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in a proceeding before the FEC in violation" of federal law and House ethics code.

Read the OCE's report on the affidavit (pdf).

Now a full House ethics committee is looking into it. CNN has also learned that the FBI is conducting its own investigation.

In addition, the Office of Congressional Ethics also found "substantial reason to believe" that Buchanan failed to disclose unearned income on his financial disclosure forms from 2007 to 2010.

Read the report (pdf).

Salvatore Rosa, a former chief financial officer for Buchanan's business interests for five years, said in a recent deposition conducted by Buchanan's attorney that he submitted a federal whistle-blower complaint to the IRS with allegations that Buchanan violated federal tax laws, including tax evasion, fraud and conspiracy to commit tax evasion.

In the deposition, Buchanan's attorneys asked Rosa if he stood to gain a "financial windfall" by filing the complaint. Rosa said "potentially." The deposition did not provide details of the alleged violations of tax law. Rosa declined an interview with CNN.

Buchanan's office responded to CNN's interview request with a statement saying the charges are "politically motivated," that the congressman did nothing wrong, and "We are confident that the Justice Department and House Ethics Committee will reach the same conclusion."

On Friday, lawyers for Buchanan filed a legal motion in Sarasota, Florida, to seal all documents in the Kazran case and to stop Kazran and his lawyers from speaking publicly about it.

Buchanan's lawyers said news stories about the congressman are "publicly disparaging" his character.

Stok said: "As an American citizen, both Congressman Buchanan and I have the fundamental right of free speech. ... Mr. Buchanan's motion is yet another in a series of frivolous efforts to attempt to shut down the case ... and to conceal his wrongdoing behind a shroud of secrecy."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Illegal Immigration Becomes Central Focus Of 2012 Presidential Election (Latino Voters)

George W. Bush used the SCOTUS Court to Win the 2000 Presidential Election.
Now Barack Obama is using his DREAM Act/ Amnesty/ Illegal Immigration Reform to Win the 2012 Presidential Election.
What's wrong with that?
Bush is WHITE.
Obama is BLACK.
SAME Game, Different Strokes!
Obama is using his Political Influence to "buy" 800,000 Latino Votes, while George W. Bush used his Political Influence to Eliminate more than 200,000 BLACK Votes.
ALL is Fair in Love, War & Politics baby!
Only the Strong Survive!
That was a Smooth Move Pres. Obama!
I have to give it to you for that one Bro.







Republicans refine immigration message after Obama's scoop

Caught off guard by the Obama administration's shift in immigration policy last week, Republicans on Tuesday refined their response in an effort to lessen any political bounce for the president at what had been a tough time in his campaign.

Certain GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney led the Republican counterattack, accusing President Barack Obama of undermining the possibility of long-term immigration reform by taking the partial step of halting deportations of some young illegal immigrants who came to America as children.

Speaking in an interview on Fox News Radio, Romney said Obama could have proposed immigration reform earlier in his term, when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, but instead waited until his re-election was pending.

"The reason this came out was the president is trying to shore up his base with Latino voters," Romney said, noting that Obama's campaign has struggled in recent weeks to deal with a disappointing jobs report and what he called self-inflicted wounds.

"He is also trying to change the subject from his miserable speech last week, from his gaffe that the private economy is doing fine," Romney added.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, acknowledged that Obama's move "puts everyone in a difficult position," telling reporters it will "make it much more difficult for us to work in a bipartisan way to get to a permanent solution."

Boehner also said that the policy change might violate the Constitution and that the president made no attempt to work with Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, called such Republican arguments hypocritical and "phony outrage."

"The complaints are varied, but they have one thing in common: None of them actually take issue with the substance of President Obama's directive," Reid said, adding: "They just don't like the way President Obama made the decision -- or that he will get the credit for bringing out of the shadows 800,000 trustworthy young men and women who know no other home but the United States."

Tuesday's spin by leading Republican moderates Romney and Boehner differed from the initial reaction by conservatives who called Obama's move an amnesty -- a buzzword for right-wing opposition that has stymied immigration reform efforts.

Now the Republican criticism focuses on the process rather than the content, and for good reason.

A Bloomberg poll released Tuesday showed that a solid majority of likely voters back the policy change Obama announced Friday, including coveted independent voters.

According to the survey, 64% of respondents agree with the new policy, while 30% disagree. Among independents, the percentage in agreement rises to 66%, while 26% are opposed.

The poll also showed that 86% of Democrats support the new policy, while 56% of Republicans disagree with it.

Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University, called Obama's move "very shrewd" because it showed leadership on an issue important to his liberal base and the Hispanic community.

"This is a major, major step toward cementing the bond between the Latino community and the Democratic Party in an active way," Schiller told CNN, adding that voters will remember that the Democrats were "the party that let me stay in this country, ... that kept my family intact."

In announcing the change Friday, Obama said it would make U.S. immigration policy "more fair, more efficient and more just."

The new policy allows people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat and were successful students or served in the military to receive a two-year deferral from deportation.

They also can apply for work permits.

Administration officials emphasized that the change offers no path to citizenship or legal residency, and they said it will allow the Department of Homeland Security to focus resources on keeping out new illegal immigrants and tracking down repeat offenders, criminals and others.

The policy change mimics legislation called the DREAM Act, which Democrats were unable to push through Congress in 2010 because of a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.

In that vote, five Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in blocking the measure, while three GOP senators voted with Democrats to bring it up.

The final tally of 55-41 was five votes shy of breaking the filibuster.

Reid complained Tuesday that Republicans have continually resisted efforts to work with Democrats on immigration reform and the DREAM Act.

"Every time Democrats offer to work together on comprehensive immigration reform, Republicans find an excuse to fight sensible change," Reid said. "And every time Democrats propose bipartisan legislation to provide a pathway to citizenship for children brought here illegally through no fault of their own, Republicans find an excuse to oppose our practical reforms."

After Obama announced the policy change Friday, conservative House Republicans immediately blasted it as a backdoor amnesty, with Iowa Rep. Steve King threatening to sue the administration.

However, Republican aides acknowledge that immigration is a divisive issue within their party, with GOP members in competitive districts needing to appeal to Hispanic voters to win re-election this fall.

To Schiller, the Obama move put Republicans in a tough spot if they oppose his policy of halting the deportations.

Noting the children of illegal immigrants affected by the change had to be very young when they arrived in America with their parents, she called it "a population that is impossible to paint in a negative light."

"How can you support a policy that would break up families? You can't," she said.
Boehner and Romney reflected that reality Tuesday.

"I think we all have concerns for those who are caught in this trap through no fault of their own and are here," Boehner said.

Romney pledged to "work from the beginning of my administration to put in place a piece of legislation which deals with this issue on a long-term basis," saying young illegal immigrants who serve in the military "should be able to become permanent residents of the United States," a step short of full citizenship.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, avoided a direct answer to repeated questions from reporters about his response to Obama's move, deferring instead to a speech by Romney later this week at a major Latino conference in Florida.

"He is the leader of our party from now until November and we hope beyond, and we're gonna wait and hear what he has to say about it," McConnell said.

Romney has endorsed efforts by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who has been mentioned as a possible running mate, to draft a Republican version of the DREAM Act.

Obama's move effectively ended that effort, a Rubio aide acknowledged Monday.
"We're re-evaluating our plans," Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said. "The president's announcement took away our momentum and made the politics a lot tougher."

Rubio had planned to introduce the bill this summer, citing concerns about certain students facing deportation ahead of the new school year, but his office said the president's step erased any sense of urgency.

"This approach requires a long-term solution, and my biggest concern -- and I may be proven wrong -- my biggest concern is that by doing it this way, the president had undermined and set back the hopes of getting a long-term solution done on this issue," Rubio told CNBC on Tuesday.

Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in immigration issues, said the exceptionally bitter political divide right now made Republican calls for comprehensive immigration reform ring hollow.

During the GOP primary campaign, Romney said he wanted illegal immigrants to deport themselves, "meaning if we make it miserable enough for (them), they will leave," Singer told CNN.

Now his desire for comprehensive reform also sounds like campaign talk that might not translate to results should Romney win the White House in November, she said.

If Obama's policy change is close to what Rubio was proposing, then both sides should be able to coalesce around it, Singer noted, adding: "The fact is that Obama has enacted something similar that doesn't somehow add up to bipartisan support, and that, my friend, is politics."

Both Obama and Romney are scheduled to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials annual conference later this week in Florida, a key general election battleground state with a large Hispanic population.

Both candidates also released Spanish-language ads this week. Romney unveiled a spot Monday attacking the president's record on the economy, while the Obama campaign released a spot Tuesday featuring Latino talk show host Cristina Saralegui, who endorsed the president after last week's policy shift, according to the campaign.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

Bush vs Gore: Analyzing SCOTUS' Role in The 2000 Presidential Election (Videos)

Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore


Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore

Perhaps no event better illustrates the power of the United States Supreme Court than the resolution of the 2000 presidential election. Just when you thought the separation of powers issue had been settled once and for all, the Court stepped in to adjudicate who had won the biggest political contest of all. Legions of Court watchers, law professors, media commentators, and armchair legal analysts across the country thought the Court's willingness to step into the fray was a major misstep. Still, somebody had to decide who's in charge!

Background info

Election night 2000 was a cliffhanger that went on for weeks. Many people went to bed that night thinking that Al Gore had won, only to discover in the morning that George W. Bush had been declared the winner. In fact, the election was simply too close to call. Several states were up for grabs, but in the end it came down to one: Florida, where Bush's younger brother, Jeb, was governor. Florida electors were unable to commit themselves to either Bush or Gore owing to the closeness of the vote. Brush fires erupted in several precincts where the candidates' surrogates traded allegations about various improprieties. Recounts were started, then stopped as Republicans and Democrats wrangled over what standards to apply. It was more than a little chaotic.

The Court steps in

The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law. But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.

A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.

The Court's third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.

Needless to say, the George W. Bush camp was jubilant. Al Gore supporters were incensed. Many people were simply happy to have things settled. But others worried that the Court had gone too far. In the past, in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which put an end to legal segregation, and United States v. Nixon (1974), which led to the first presidential resignation under threat of impeachment, were unanimously decided. After Bush v. Gore, the concern was that the Court had not only overreached itself but undermined its authority by not speaking with one voice. That split decision, 5-4, suggested that Bush v. Gore was a political, not a judicial, decision.

Precedents

Bush v. Gore wasn't the Court's first foray into the realm of king making. The election of 1876 pitted Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic governor of New York, against Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican governor of Ohio. After the votes had been counted, it seemed that Tilden had won the popular vote and had 184 uncontested electoral votes to Hayes's 165. The magic number was 185 electoral votes. Twenty votes of the Electoral College were still up for grabs, however — all but one of them in the southern states of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. (The exception was Oregon. They always have marched to a different drummer.)

The Twelfth Amendment stipulates that in a contested presidential election, "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Because in 1876 Congress was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House set up an electoral commission to decide who would become president. The Senate chose three Republicans and two Democrats to sit on the commission, and the House chose two Democrats and three Republicans. The remainder of the commission was to consist of five justices of the Supreme Court. The bill setting up the commission named two Republican justices and two Democratic justices, but let those four select their own nonpartisan tiebreaker.

The only truly neutral member of the Court at the time was David Davis. But Davis resigned from the Court almost immediately, leaving only Republican justices as alternatives. Joseph Bradley, seemingly the least partisan of those remaining, was selected as the final member of the commission. To no one's great surprise, the commission voted along party lines, selecting the Republican Hayes. Democrats, who were mostly Southerners, cried foul, claiming that Davis, and perhaps Bradley, had been subjected to political blackmail. When the uproar threatened to derail the orderly transfer of power, a deal was struck. The Republicans agreed to withdraw the federal troops still occupying the South in the wake of the Civil War, to appropriate funds for Southern improvement, and to appoint at least one Southerner to the cabinet. In return, the Democrats agreed not to delay Hayes's inauguration. It was a flat-out political deal, and ever since its implementation, the Court has been criticized for having played a part in what many saw as outright log rolling.

And the winner is . . .

Why, then, did the Supreme Court agree to get back into the fray after the election of 2000? In a sense, the justices had no choice. When the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore proved too close to call, the contestants resorted to a series of lawsuits in an effort to settle the matter. These suits proceeded simultaneously in the state court system and in federal court. The cases largely concerned the matter and manner of vote counting (and recounting) in the pivotal state of Florida. There were charges of voter intimidation, ballot rigging — all manner of political shenanigans. Something had to be done.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Dummies.com, Youtube, Google Maps

Florida vs The DOJ: Purging Minority Voters: Deja Vu' Bush vs Gore? (Videos)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Florida Refuses to Stop Voter Purge

Last week the U.S. Department of Justice ordered Florida's Secretary of State Ken Detzner to halt the state's plan to purge thousands of registered voters from the voter rolls.

Florida's database-matching process for deciding which residents are ineligible non-citizens had not been cleared with the Justice Department -- a step that the agency argues is required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that states and counties with a history of voting discrimination (in Florida's case, five counties within the state) get federal permission to change election procedures.

The Justice Department thusly called on the state to stop the purge and submit the procedure that it's using for federal review.

On Wednesday night the state of Florida officially responded to the request.

In a letter (pdf) to the Justice Department, Detzner firmly maintained that Gov. Rick Scott will continue with the purge.

As the Miami Herald reports:

In a sharply worded letter, Scott's administration claimed the Department of Justice doesn't understand two federal voting laws at the heart of the dispute and was protecting potentially illegal voters more than legal ones.

Florida also accused another federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security, of violating the law by denying Florida access to a federal citizenship database.

"This hardly seems like an approach earnestly designed to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that eligible voters have their votes counted," said the letter, written by Scott's hand-picked secretary of state, Ken Detzner, a fellow Republican.
Detzner also submitted a list of four questions that he wants the DOJ to answer.

In tone and substance, the letter all but dares the Justice Department to sue Florida for allegedly violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), nicknamed "motor voter."

The Justice Department hasn't yet responded to the letter, but a lawsuit is certainly one possibility.

However, the DOJ isn't the only camp calling Florida's purge into serious question.

All 67 of Florida's county election supervisors responsible for doing the actual purging (the vast majority of whom are Republicans, by the way) have refused to comply with Gov. Scott's orders.

Local election officials in Florida, echoing the cries of legal challengers to the state's voter purge, say that the data used to identify people as noncitizens are flawed.

Throughout the state, election supervisors have found that hundreds of people on the lists created by Scott's administration are, in fact, eligible voters.

As the Republican Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark wrote, "The accuracy of the voter registration database is of the utmost importance, and we will continue our efforts to ensure the information is current.

However, we will not use unreliable data."

Judd Legum, editor-in-chief of Think Progress, which has interviewed several Florida election supervisors, says that Scott's fight has become more symbolic than practical. "The county elections supervisors aren't doing it, but Florida is still pressing ahead with their own effort," said Legum, who explained that under Florida law, only the election supervisors, not Scott, can remove people from the rolls. "But the legal fight is still important because they could change their mind at any time.

It's just unclear what the impact of all of this is at this point."



Florida won't halt voter registration purge, setting stage for legal showdown

Florida's top elections official has thrown allegations of law violations back at the federal government rather than halt the state's efforts to identify and purge non-citizens from voter registration rolls.

The decision Wednesday by the administration of Republican Gov. Rick Scott to fight back against the administration of President Barack Obama sets the stage for a legal showdown just months before the swing stage of Florida could help determine the presidential election. The dispute has taken a sharp partisan edge as Republican elected officials have blasted the federal government, while Democrats have criticized Scott.

Secretary of State Ken Detzner in his latest response accused the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of violating federal law by refusing to give state election officials access to an immigration database for the effort that was launched at the urging of Scott.

"This hardly seems like an approach earnestly designed to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that 'eligible" voters have their votes counted," Detzner wrote.

He also denied allegations by the Department of Justice that Florida's purge violates federal anti-discrimination and voter registration laws in a letter to the agency's voting section chief, T. Christian Herren.

Detzner's letter is in response to one Herren sent him last week demanding an end to the state's search for non-citizen voters. The legal adviser to Florida's 67 county supervisors of elections then recommended they stop the effort until state and federal officials resolve their dispute.

"Fortunately, many local election administrators have indicated they will not carry out the state's plan," said Myrna Perez, a voting rights lawyer with the Brennan Center Center for Justice at New York University. "The opportunity for errors when conducting massive voter purges makes it imperative that purge practices be transparent, accurate, and carried out well in advance of an election."

A U.S. Department of Justice official on Wednesday evening acknowledged the department had received but the letter but said officials were "currently reviewing the letter."

Florida began looking for non-U.S. citizens on its voter rolls last year by comparing driver's license information to voter registration lists. An initial search turned up as many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be U.S. citizens.

Earlier this year the state sent out an initial list of more than 2,600 names of suspected non-citizen voters to local election supervisors and asked them to verify the information and remove ineligible voters.

Supervisors, however, responded by pointing out the list had errors on it. Miami-Dade officials say they have found nearly 500 voters who were citizens and other counties they too have found citizens on the list, but a smaller number of non-citizens have been verified.

"It is absolutely insane what Gov. Scott is doing to attack Florida voters," said U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar. "We know what he is up to, we are mad as hell, and we will not allow our voting rights to be trampled on."

U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, criticized the U.S. Department of Justice for telling Florida to stop its purge.

"The Department of Justice under President Obama has become so politicized that it consistently puts aiding the president's reelection campaign ahead of upholding justice and enforcing the rule of law," Rooney said.

Herren wrote in his letter to Detzner that the state's procedures to identify non-U.S. citizens have not been reviewed to make sure they are not discriminatory. Florida must secure approval for changes in voting procedures because five counties are still covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Detzner argued the rest of the state is not covered by that requirement and that supervisors of elections in the five affected counties "are simply administering a law that the Department of Justice has duly pre-cleared." That law outlines notification requirement and other procedures supervisors must follow before they can remove potentially ineligible voters from the rolls.

Removing voters from the rolls less than 90 days before a federal election also appears to violate the voter registration law, Herren also contended.

Detzner argued enforcing that provision in regard to non-citizens would unconstitutionally discriminate against legitimate voters by diluting their voting strength.

The secretary concluded with a list of four questions for Herren, starting with whether the Justice Department agreed Homeland Security has a legal obligation to give Florida access to its immigration database.

Detzner also asked if the department's position is that federal law bars Florida from identifying and removing non-citizens between now and the Nov. 6 general election and, if not, what steps the state may take in that regard.

Finally, he asked if Florida cannot remove non-citizens from the rolls whether it could still identify them and remove them after the election.

Detzner asked that Herren respond by Monday.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Journal line Online.com, MSNBC, Russia Today, Sunshine State News, The Root, Youtube, Google Maps

George W. Bush & His Texas-Sized White House Portrait (Videos)

Bush thanks Obama for inviting his "rowdy friends" to portrait hanging

Former President George W. Bush brought a light-hearted tone to the unveiling of his official White House portrait on Thursday, winning over an audience of friends, family and former colleagues with jokes.

Standing beside his portrait after its unveiling in the White House East Room, Mr. Bush chided the cheering audience to quiet down and thanked President Obama "for inviting our rowdy friends to my hanging."

The new portrait "brings an interesting symmetry to the White House collection," the former president said. "It now starts and ends with a George W."

A portrait of former First Lady Laura Bush was also unveiled. Both will become part of the permanent White House collection.

It is a tradition for the sitting U.S. president to host a portrait unveiling for his immediate predecessor, and on Thursday, Mr. Obama had some jokes of his own.
Mr. Obama said he would always remember the kind words Mr. Bush had for him during the transition from one administration to the next. "Plus, you left me a really good TV sports package," the president said to laughs. "I use it."

Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush had only kind remarks for one another, with Mr. Obama noting, "We have our problems politically, but the presidency transcends these differences."

The current president noted that after three and a half years in office, he has "a deeper understanding" of the challenges his predecessor faced. He commended Mr. Bush for "conveying extraordinary strength and resolve" after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and for understanding that issues of national security and economic stability transcend partisan politics.

First Lady Michelle Obama thanked Laura Bush for serving as "a wonderful model of strength and grace" as first lady and as a mother. Mrs. Bush thanked the first family and joked, "Nothing makes a house a home like having portraits of its former occupants staring down at you."

Those in attendance for the unveiling included Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Bush's daughters Jenna and Barbara, former President George H.W. Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush, Mr. Bush's former adviser Karl Rove, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The portrait of Mr. Bush shows the former president standing in the center of the Oval Office with his right hand resting on an armchair that was made for the White House in 1818. Over his right shoulder hangs a 1929 western painting, A Charge to Keep, by William H. D. Koerner. Mr. Bush used the same title for his 1999 memoir.

The portrait of Laura Bush shows the former first lady in the White House Green Room, which she helped refurbish in 2007.

The portraits were painted by John Howard Sanden, who received the first John Singer Sargent Medal for Lifetime Achievement from the American Society of Portrait Artists in 1994.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Google Maps

Obama & Romney's 2012 Election Armageddon: Electoral vs Popular Votes (Deja Vu' Bush & Gore!)

How Another Electoral Split Decision Could Divide America

In looking ahead toward the November election, Republican strategists should take proactive steps to avoid a damaging, dangerous conclusion to the presidential race and to prevent the very real chance that Mitt Romney will win the Electoral College even while losing the popular vote badly to Barack Obama.

The problem stems from the lopsided margins President Obama will surely pile up in a few uncontested states with big populations, including California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

Romney, meanwhile, will likely prevail by comparable margins in only relatively small states: Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Alabama, and Alaska.

The big states that offer Romney his most plausible path to Electoral College victory probably will be won by much smaller margins, leaving Obama with a clear popular-vote advantage.

All credible scenarios for a Romney victory with his “swing state” strategy begin with the presumptive GOP nominee holding all 22 states McCain carried, which are worth six additional electoral votes this time because of reapportionment.

From this Republican base, Romney needs to implement a three/two/one trifecta: winning back the three traditionally Republican states (Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia) that Obama carried last time; seizing the two perennial battlegrounds that elected George W. Bush twice (Ohio and Florida); and then winning one more state—even a very small state—(New Hampshire is a likely candidate) to bring him the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

In order to accomplish this feat, Romney needs to add as few as 650,000 votes to McCain’s totals in just six decisive states to get an Electoral College victory with the bare minimum of 270 votes, even though Obama won in 2008 with a near-landslide margin of nearly 9 million votes in the popular total—18 times Al Gore’s popular-vote advantage over Bush.

A more likely outcome would give Romney wider margins of victory in swing states, while carrying a few other hotly contested states in the bargain. For instance, he could prevail in both Nevada and Iowa (where he developed strong local support in the caucuses) for a total of 282 electoral votes to Obama’s 256.

But even assuming that in each of the states mentioned above he won by 20,000 votes (bigger than Obama’s North Carolina margin last time, and large enough to avoid notorious squeakers like Florida’s 528-vote margin in 2000), Romney would still fall far short of a popular-vote victory.

Even without adding to his own vote totals (despite population growth and expansion of the voter rolls), the president would still pile up an advantage of at least 7 million votes—substantially more than Bill Clinton’s comfortable margin of 5 million against George H.W. Bush in 1992.

GOP partisans may blithely dismiss such calculations as meaningless since the Constitution unequivocally declares that the candidate with the most electoral votes becomes the next president, and the national tally of popular votes means nothing in the eyes of the law.

But only once before did a sitting president lose the White House despite winning the popular vote, and Grover Cleveland’s 1888 margin over rival Benjamin Harrison was slender—48.6 percent to 47.9 percent. By contrast, Mr. Obama could prevail by as much as the 7 percent margin that gave him victory last time, while still losing the Electoral College to Romney.

Grover Cleveland quietly vacated the White House without protest, confirming his reputation as a leader of unassailable integrity and profound humility. Would this happen in 2012? Would President Obama attempt to calm angry spirits of his partisans on Nov. 7 were the results to show a “split decision?”

It’s easy to imagine the national levels of rage, and impossible not to envision the president of the United States lending his voice to the angry chorus.

In the five weeks before Dec. 17, the day when electors formally assemble in their respective state capitals, the president could push electors to shift support to him—even if they defied state legislation requiring winner-take-all distribution of electoral votes to the victor in that state and ignored laws of 24 states threatening punishment to “faithless electors.”

The arguments would be fiery and, most likely, somewhat effective: insisting that basic fairness and democratic principle should trump any concern over the creaky, 19th-century relic known as the Electoral College.

Obama might even consider the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Between 2007 and 2011, eight deeply partisan Democratic states (Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and California) and the District of Columbia enacted legislation demanding that their electors cast their votes for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won the state.

This provision would only take effect if enough states agreed to this compact to represent a majority of all electoral votes; in an emergency, Democrats might attempt to coerce the five wavering states they need to take action in time to make a difference.

Such action would raise a host of constitutional questions, but the Supreme Court might be unable to provide a final settlement of a disputed election as it did in 2000.

For one thing, Obama has already made contempt for the court a hallmark of his presidency—as he did when he used the State of the Union address to openly condemn the Citizens United decision on corporate spending for political advertising.

If the court strikes down key elements of the Affordable Care Act in June, the president will no doubt display additional outrage.

The element of race could give an especially dangerous edge to any protracted battle over a disputed election. How many Republicans would lose heart at the prospect of evicting the nation’s first black president on a “technicality” after a clear majority of his fellow citizens expressed support for renewing his White House lease?

What, then, could responsible politicians do to head off the most dire consequences of an inconclusive election?

For Republicans, the answer is easy: they must campaign vigorously in all large states, even those with no realistic possibility for statewide GOP victory.

Though the Romney campaign will naturally resist investing precious resources on lost-cause states with hugely expensive media markets (California, New York, and Illinois), they should overcome their reluctance.

With no super-heated statewide races in these population centers and no visible Republican drive for statewide victory, conservative voters might feel a natural inclination to stay home—allowing Obama to run up his margins.

If Romney can hold Obama’s margin to 55–45 in some of these heavily Democratic big states, he should win the popular vote; if, however, Democrats run up the score past 60–40, then Obama will win a popular-vote majority even if he loses the Electoral College.

Of course, the ideal way to avoid a national crisis over a disputed electoral outcome would be for Romney to win an unexpectedly comfortable nationwide victory, sweeping to Reagan-like success even in states assumed to be solidly Democratic.

Failing that sort of unanticipated landslide, the best policy would be to compete fiercely in every major population center while recognizing that in this unique election, even popular votes that seem theoretically irrelevant may play a role in averting catastrophe.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, C-Span, The Daily Beast, Youtube, Google Maps