RIGHT WING LADEN FEDERAL APPEALS COURT SAYS NO TO STRICTER VOTER ID LAWS

One day before the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country wielded that law to strike down a Texas voter suppression law. A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion written by a George W. Bush appointee, held that Texas’s voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and must, at the very least, be significantly weakened. Though the court did not accept every argument raised against the state’s voter ID law, and its opinion does not go nearly as far as a trial judge’s decision which also struck down this law, it is a significant blow to the state’s efforts to make voting more difficult.

Voter ID laws are a common obstacle raised, mostly by right-leaning lawmakers, in front of citizens seeking to exercise their right to vote. Though stringent voter ID laws, which require voters to show a photo ID before they can cast a ballot, are often justified as a shield against voter fraud, the kind of fraud these laws target barely exists. A Wisconsin study, for example, found just seven cases of fraud out of 3 million votes cast during the 2004 election — and none of these seven cases were the kind of in-person voter fraud that is prevented by a voter ID law. Similarly an investigation by former Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) found exactly zero cases of in-person voter fraud over the course of several elections.

What voter ID laws do accomplish, however, is they disproportionately disenfranchise groups that tend to prefer Democratic candidates over Republicans. As Judge Catharina Haynes explained in her opinion on behalf of the Fifth Circuit, one analysis determined that “Hispanic registered voters and Black registered voters were respectively 195% and 305% more likely than their Anglo peers to lack” a voter ID in the state of Texas. Indeed, even Texas’s own numbers confirmed that voter ID laws disproportionately impact racial minorities. Their own expert “found that 4% of eligible White voters lacked SB 14 ID, compared to 5.3% of eligible Black voters and 6.9% of eligible Hispanic voters.”

Similarly, low-income voters are much less likely to have ID then their wealthier counterparts. The district court in this case “credited expert testimony that 21.4% of eligible voters earning less than $20,000 per year lack SB 14 ID, compared to only 2.6% of voters earning between $100,000 and $150,000 per year.”

The racial disparities impacting voter eligibility, when combined with other conditions in Texas that tend to produce discrimination against African Americans and Latinos, were sufficient reason for the court to hold that Texas’s voter ID law must be struck down. Yet, while this is certainly a victory for the voters and institutions that challenged this voter suppression law, it is not a total victory.

For one thing, the Fifth Circuit determined that the appropriate remedy in this case may not be a broad injunction striking down the entire law. Rather, if the evidence in this case does not show that Texas acted with a discriminatory intent when it enacted this law, an injunction “reinstating voter registration cards as documents that qualify as acceptable identification under the Texas Election Code” may be appropriate.

More importantly, Haynes’s opinion vacated the trial court’s finding that state lawmakers did, indeed, act with racial discrimination in mind when they enacted this law. Pointing to several pieces of evidence that the district court relied upon which the Fifth Circuit found less compelling, Haynes’s opinion instructs the trial judge to conduct “a reexamination of the probative evidence underlying Plaintiffs’ discriminatory purpose claims weighed against the contrary evidence.” That does not preclude the trial court from determining, once again, that state lawmakers had racial discrimination on their minds when they enacted this law, but it does make it more difficult for that court to reach such a determination.

Should the courts ultimately conclude that Texas did act with a discriminatory purpose, that could have profound implications for the state moving forward. Among other things, it could lead to a court order reinstating the requirement that Texas “pre-clear” all of its voting laws with officials in Washington DC before those laws can take effect — a requirement that was deactivated when five conservative members of the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

Ultimately, however, any decision calling Texas’s voter ID law into question must survive two significant obstacles. The first is that the Fifth Circuit is an especially conservative court, and it is likely that Texas will ask a panel of all 15 of the court’s active judges to reconsider this case. The fact that Haynes agreed that the law is problematic should help supporters of voting rights if Texas seeks full court review, but it is no guarantee that a majority of the Fifth Circuit will agree with her.

And, even if Haynes’s conclusion survives contact with the full Fifth Circuit, this case is reasonably likely to be reviewed by a Supreme Court that’s shown skepticism of voting rights claims generally and of the Voting Rights Act in particular.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

TEXAS LAW MAKERS LET IT BE KNOWN, DON’T FUCK WITH OUR FRACKING

“Small Government” Texas lawmakers have made it clear you don’t mess with Texas when it comes to extracting fossil fuels. Even if you’re a Texan.

On Monday, Texas governor Greg Abbott signed legislation that prohibits cities across Texas from banning hydraulic fracturing from their home turf. In what was a major agenda item for Texas lawmakers this session, towns like Denton, Texas — which passed the state’s first local fracking ban last November — will no longer be able to exercise local control over the oil and gas industry when it comes to nearby extraction.

The law will take effect immediately as it passed both chambers by more than a two-thirds margin. Communities will now only be able to impose ordinances that regulate aboveground activity related to oil and gas operations, such as things relating to traffic, noise, lights, or “reasonable setback requirements,” which dictate how far away drilling must be from buildings. The law is meant to ensure that these local surface regulations are commercially reasonable and do not “effectively” prohibit oil and gas operations.

In signing the bill, Gov. Abbot said it “does a profound job of helping to protect private property rights here in the State of Texas, ensuring those who own their own property will not have the heavy hand of local regulation deprive them of their rights.”

Many opposed to the bill found this type of rhetoric hypocritical, especially for a state with such a strong foundation in limited government oversight and local property rights.

“These bills absolutely conflict with longstanding conservative principles of local control and self-determination,” Luke Metzger, the founder and director of Environment Texas said. “Many of these legislators are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, decrying federal preemption of state sovereignty on the one hand, while pushing one-size fits all mandates from Austin overriding local ordinances.”

After Denton outlawed fracking in 2014, it was sued by the Texas General Land Office and Texas Oil and Gas Association. In another extreme reaction to the Denton fracking ban, lawmakers introduced a total of 11 bills this session to limit local oversight over fracking before settling on HB 40, which was signed into law on Monday.

“It’s a bad situation when city leaders’ hands are tied,” Denton Councilman Kevin Roden told the Wall Street Journal. “There seems to be an attitude that big state government knows better than the citizens of a city. I just think — conservative or liberal — that is something you don’t do in Texas.”

Texas is the country’s biggest oil and gas producer, and it rests on two massive shale gas deposits — the Barnett Shale in the north and the Eagle Ford Shale in the south. Other oil- and gas-rich states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Oklahoma are pursuing similar laws. In Oklahoma both chambers of the legislature have passed a bill limiting communities from imposing drilling ordinances.

Fracking is a process in which a mixture of pressurized water, sand and chemicals is sent underground to free up oil and natural gas reserves. Fracking operations are increasingly being tied to unusual earthquake swarms in states like Texas and Oklahoma. Local residents also worry about water and air pollution, as well as the heavy use of water in areas that are in short supply.

It looks as though Looks like Texas shouldn't be worried about the feds and Jade Helm 15. It's the state government that's screwing them.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

A BILL THAT DOES ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING?

As Americans await what many expect to be a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, Republicans in the Lone Star State are rushing to pass laws they claim protect clergy and officials who oppose marriage equality, but which detractors say only replicate existing statutes and thus functionally achieve nothing.

On Monday, the Texas Senate approved SB 2065, a bill that purports to shield religious organizations — and especially clergy — from having to perform “any marriage” that “violates a sincerely held religious belief.” A similar bill, HB 3567, is currently making its way through the Texas House of Representatives.

“We want to make sure they are not ever coerced into performing a marriage ceremony that would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs,” State Sen. Craig Estes (R), who sponsored the bill, told NPR. 

The Senate bill does not specifically mention same-sex marriage, but is endorsed by conservative Texas clergy who tied it to ongoing debates over marriage equality. Rev. Dave Welch, President of Texas Pastor Council Action, said in a statement he believes the measure is meant to “protect Texas pastors who stand strong on the Biblical view of God’s design of male, female, marriage and family from being forced by threat of criminal or civil punishment by declining to ‘solemnize’ weddings that violate those convictions.” Welch also blasted Texas Democrats such as state Senator John Whitmire who spoke out against the bill, accusing pro-LGBT legislators of living in a “parallel universe” and listing government officials such as President Barack Obama who he said were “committed to using police powers to force acceptance of the LGBTQIA agenda.”

Welch’s questionable theology on marriage notwithstanding, opponents of the law note that there is a major problem with the legislation: it simply parrots laws already on the books, making it a ultimately useless.

“Who forces a clergy to marry someone they don’t want to? It’s unheard of,” Whitmire told the Associated Press.

Indeed, forcing a religious leader to perform a religious ceremony in a religious house of worship against their will would explicitly violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: namely, the clause guaranteeing the free exercise of religious expression. This same right is also already enshrined in Texas’ own state Constitution, which reads, “No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.” Furthermore, the right of clergy to refuse to officiate any marriage they please is well established, as evidenced by numerous examples of pastors and priests declining to oversee the weddings of couples who are interracial, disabled, divorced, or living together before marriage.

Meanwhile, several other anti-LGBT bills are simultaneously making their way through the legislature in advance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that many believe will make same-sex marriage legal everywhere in the country. Democrats are currently working to delay a vote on another bill in the Texas House, HB 4105, which aims to prohibit state officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses — a law which is also already on the books in Texas. But HB 3864, which supporters contend protects faith-based adoption agencies from having to close if they refuse to work with same-sex couples, could require LGBT kids to endure conversion therapy or attend a religious school that is not of their chosen faith tradition.





NFTOS 

STAFF WRIER

LONE STAR LUNATICS

Daily Show host Jon Stewart slammed the wave of conspiracy theories surrounding the Jade Helm 15 training exercises, which have some people concerned over a “Texas takeover” by the federal government. Stewart said:

“You know who’s calling it a ‘Texas takeover’? Lone star lunatics. Dallas dicks, Houston assholes,” Stewart said. “There’s no Texas takeover. The United States government already controls Texas. Just borrow a textbook from a neighboring state — it’s all in there.”

While it was “adorable” for Gov. Greg Abbott to think that the state guard could pick a fight with the military and win, Stewart said, the exercises date back to at least 2001, when another Republican, George W. Bush, was president and Rick Perry let the operations continue without incident.

“It appears you are on the verge of being taken over by ISIS or the United States of America,” Stewart said. “So you have a choice to make. And when you make it, just remember — and I never thought I’d be saying this — what would Rick Perry do?”

VIDEO COURTESY OF COMEDY CENTRAL

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Stewart also touched on the recent attempted shooting attack outside an anti-Muslim event promoted by Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), criticizing the attack without siding with Geller’s particular message.

“AFDI is a First Amendment group the same way people from Philly are sports fans,” he said. “Ostensibly, they like sports, but really they’re looking for an excuse to punch a stranger and pour beer on someone’s baby.”

Nevertheless, he argued, “It is not okay to shoot other people because you are offended by what they draw. Even if they drew it to offend you, no shooting of them. Never okay.”

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

SOMEWHERE IN TEXAS A VILLAGE IS MISSING ITS IDIOT

TEXAS VILLAGE IDIOT TED CRUZ

Sen. Ted Cruz who launched his presidential campaign on Monday, was one of the key architects of the Republican opposition to raising the country’s debt ceiling. He’s now touting that effort as part of his jobs plan.

Under the “Jobs & Opportunity” section of his website, which says that “Ted Cruz has led the way to bring back jobs, growth, and opportunity to America,” one bullet relates to his key role in getting Republicans to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, which has been routinely raised for decades to allow the government to borrow more money so that it can meet all of its obligations. It says he “set an early, high standard for meaningful Republican opposition to increasing the debt ceiling,” including his opposition to a simple majority vote to lift it in 2013 and refusal to let an increase be part of a budget deal.

Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee originally teamed up to get 14 other senators to sign on to a letter demanding that Obamacare be defunded in return for raising the debt ceiling and keeping the government open. That strategy led to the eventual government shutdown at the end of 2013 and a near default on U.S. federal debt that was only avoided with the passage of an eleventh hour deal.

Cruz may want to claim this moment as part of his economic plan, but economists agree that this strategy hurt, not helped, the economy. A report from the Peterson Institute on International Economics found that the threat of default on American debt and other ways that Congress has governed crisis to crisis meant the loss of 750,000 jobs and sliced 1 percent off of GDP economic growth. The shutdown itself cost the economy an estimated $24 billion and 120,000 jobs in just two weeks. Another report found that uncertainty created by Congress’s manufactured crises over short-term spending bills, the fiscal cliff, and debt ceiling battles had already cost 900,000 jobs before the government shutdown.

Some Republicans have since distanced themselves from the shutdown and debt ceiling tactics. But some used the tactic again to nearly shut the government down a second time at the end of last year over Obamacare funding. Cruz himself has refused to rule these tactics out in his crusade against the Affordable Care Act.

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

SECEDING FROM THE UNION ONE LAW AT A TIME

LET TEXAS SECEDE

Under an unconstitutional proposal by Texas state Rep. Dan Flynn, just two people in the state of Texas — the state house speaker and the lieutenant governor — would effectively have the power to suspend any federal law within Texas’s borders, at least temporarily. The legislation creates a 14 member “joint legislative committee on nullification” that is co-chaired by the speaker and lieutenant governor. Half of the dozen remaining members are appointed by one of the committee’s chairs, while the other half are appointed by the other chair (although only eight of the committee’s fourteen total members may belong to the same political party). A bare majority of the committee, eight votes, may temporarily declare that a federal law “has no legal effect in this state.” If that declaration is ratified by the state legislature in the next legislative session, it becomes permanent.

Thus, by stacking the committee with loyalists, Texas’s speaker and lieutenant governor could effectively pick and choose which federal laws they wish to nullify, so long as they can agree with each other about what laws to target. Or, at least, they could do so if this proposal were constitutional.

Rep. Flynn’s proposal is rooted in an unconstitutional theory known as “nullification,” which claims that a state can unilaterally declare a federal law unconstitutional and thus void within the state’s borders. The Constitution, however, explicitly provides that duly enacted federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Thus, federal law is “supreme” over state law, and state laws that conflict with federal law — or which seek to openly defy federal law — are preempted by the federal government’s legislation.

Proponents of nullification seek to get around this fact by arguing that state lawmakers aren’t simply invalidating the law they do not wish to follow, they are also declaring it unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not give state lawmakers the power to issue binding pronouncements on whether federal laws are constitutional. To the contrary, the Constitution provides that “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” If a federal law actually is unconstitutional, then the proper legal course is to file a lawsuit seeking to strike the law down. As James Madison warned early in American history, nullification would “speedily put an end to the Union itself” because it would render each obligation a state’s citizens owe to the union as a whole optional. In effect, nullification is a way to secede from the union one law at a time.

Flynn’s bill containing his proposal was only filed earlier this month, so it remains to be seen whether it will gain steam in the legislature. There is, however, at least some signs that a grand proposal for nullification will be taken seriously in Texas — in 2011, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a law purporting to nullify a 2007 law signed by President George W. Bush that gradually phases out older, less energy efficient light bulbs.

My questions is, how can we help Texas secede? What can or should the rest of the country do to make this happen?

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

DEMOCRATS MIRED IN A "TURD HOLE"

DEMOCOLYPSE 2014

Says Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart kicked off night two in Austin mercilessly mocking Democrats for being stuck in a political “turd hole” for midterm season and for running like hell from President Obama “like he was one of the bad guys in those Chainsaw Massacre movies.”

Stewart rounded up all the ridiculous Democratic non-answers and disses when it comes to the issue of whether they support Obama, with one senator acting like someone “found your porn.”

And what killed Stewart is that Democrats are losing to really bad Republican candidates like Mitch McConnell and Scott Brown, the latter of whom, when asked about his record, actually said, “Do I have the best credentials? Probably not. ‘Cause, you know, whatever.”

POTUS PARTUM DEPRESSION Courtesy of Comedy Central

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Later in the show, the Daily Show trolls Texas.

JASON JONES TROLLS TEXAS Courtesy of Comedy Central

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

As a democrat I am astounded that these numbers can be factual- that indeed these races can be so statistically close. Fact, there are 17 million more democrats than republicans that voted in 2012 [The FEC reports that combining the total number of votes cast by Americans for president, House and Senate in 2012, Americans voted for the GOP 158,605,000 times and for the Democrats 176,167,000 times. In other words they cast over 17 million more Democratic votes than Republican votes in 2012].

Bottom line liberals, get off your asses and fucking vote!

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

"AWESOME" RICK PERRY IS INDICTED FOR PUBLIC CORRUPTION

"AWESOME" RICK INDICTED 

"Awesome" dipshit Rick Perry, Texas’ longstanding tea bagging wing nut governor and a 2012 presidential candidate, is now under indictment. The indictment lays out two counts against the Texas governor, one for “Abuse of Official Capacity” and the other for “Coercion of Public Servant.”

As the Texas Observer explains, this indictment arises out of a dispute over who will hold one of the few Texas offices with statewide power that is still controlled by a Democrat. Rosemary Lehmberg is that Democrat, and she is the District Attorney for Travis County, Texas. Because Travis County includes Austin, the state capital, her office controls a Public Integrity Unit that investigates alleged ethical breaches by state-level politicians. Among other things, that unit investigated the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, which is accused of improperly distributing grant money — including some grant money that was given to people with close ties to Governor Perry.

In April of 2013, however, Lehmberg was arrested for driving while very, very intoxicated. Hours after her arrest, her blood alcohol level was three times above Texas’ legal limit. She eventually pleaded guilty and spent a few weeks in jail. Yet Lehmberg has refused to step down from her role as District Attorney. According to the Observer, this is because she does not want Perry to have the opportunity to replace her with a Republican.

Perry allegedly crossed the line from an eager partisan hoping to replace a powerful official to a governor who broke the law, however, when he threatened to veto funding for the Public Integrity Unit unless Lehmberg resigned — and then he followed through on this threat. According to one count of the indictment, Perry “by means of coercion . . . influenced or attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg - in the specific performance of her official duty” — that duty being her obligation “to continue to carry out her responsibilities” as Travis County D.A.

The indictment lists two state laws which Perry allegedly violated. The first is a vague statute prohibiting public servants from “intentionally or knowingly - misusing government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.” The second is a somewhat more specific law prohibiting anyone from using coercion to “influence or attempt to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influence or attempt to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty.”

Even if Perry’s actions fall within these statutes, however, the special prosecutor bringing these charges may need to overcome a significant constitutional obstacle. In a statement released Friday evening, Perry’s attorney claims that “the veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution.” She may have a point.

The Texas Constitution gives the governor discretion to decide when to sign and when to veto a bill, as well as discretion to veto individual line-items in an appropriation bill. Though the state legislature probably could limit this veto power in extreme cases — if a state governor literally sold his veto to wealthy interest groups, for example, the legislature could almost certainly make that a crime — a law that cuts too deep into the governor’s veto power raises serious separation of powers concerns. Imagine that the legislature passed a law prohibiting Democratic governors from vetoing restrictions on abortion, or prohibiting Republican governors from vetoing funding for Planned Parenthood. Such laws would rework the balance of power between the executive and the legislature established by the state constitution, and they would almost certainly be unconstitutional.

So an important question facing whichever court is tasked with trying Perry’s case, shall be whether a law preventing Perry from using strong-arm tactics to push out a genuinely compromised public official is an unconstitutional restriction on his discretion as governor or a valid means of reigning in corruption. This is not likely to be an easy question for the judges, and potentially, justices, who are called upon to resolve it.

This indictment, whether he is found guilty or not, should eliminate this dipshit from getting to the white house.

You can read the full indictment here.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

Texas Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Is Unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, the state’s marriage laws deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and therefore “demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.” Garcia stayed his decision pending appeal, so same-sex couples cannot begin marrying yet.

The case was brought by two couples: Victor Holmes and Mark Phariss, who want to marry in Texas, and Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman, who want their Massachusetts marriage recognized. Dimetman and De Leon are raising a child together. The ruling would prevent the state from enforcing its 2003 law and 2005 constitutional amendment that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. Voters passed that amendment by a 3-to-1 margin, but a plurality of Texans now support marriage equality.

According to the ruling, not only are these families denied benefits under the law, they are also subjected to “state sanctioned discrimination, stigma, and humiliation,” explaining: “In this case, it is clear that Plaintiffs suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment under the law on the basis of their sexual orientation, and this stigmatic harm flows directly from Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage.” Garcia cited Windsor, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, noting that not recognizing same-sex marriages “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Garcia also dismissed the state’s arguments that banning same-sex marriage was somehow worthwhile to protect children or promote procreation. Echoing the similar ruling in Utah, he ruled that the ban only hurts the children of same-sex couples while doing nothing to affect whether heterosexual couples marry or how they raise their children.

Preempting responses from conservatives accusing him of judicial activism or overturning the will of the people, Garcia concluded by pointing out that he is simply enforcing the U.S. Constitution:

Today’s Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution. Furthermore, Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals (Romer), has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals (Lawrence), and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently (Windsor).

Garcia is the seventh federal judge to rule against a federal ban on same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act last summer, following rulings in Illinois, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.

The dominoes are starting to fall.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

TEXAS GUN BULLIES

Cross posted from thinkprogress:

On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

According to a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action (MDA), the moms were inside the Blue Mesa Grill when members of Open Carry Texas (OCT) — an open carry advocacy group — “pull[ed] up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks.” The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of “inciting a riot” and waited for the gun advocates to leave. The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours.

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.”

This is not the first time that gun advocates have rallied at MDA events. In March, a group of armed men crashed a MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis. Other gun advocate groups will hold rallies this upcoming December 14th, the anniversary date of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Licensed gun owners are allowed to carry concealed weapons, but Texas is one of six states that prohibits open carry of firearms. Attorney General Greg Abbott, a likely Republican successor for Gov. Rick Perry, has vowed to permit concealed handgun owners to display their firearms in public. Four GOP contenders for lieutenant governor similarly hope to put in place open carry laws if elected.

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

DOES IT MATTER WHO'S DRIVING THE CAR?

ALL MEN PANEL DECIDING WOMEN'S RIGHT'S

A federal judge has sided with reproductive rights advocates to declare one of Texas’ new abortion restrictions unconstitutional, ensuring that one of the provisions in a sweeping new anti-choice law will not take effect this week.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel heard the case last week and had promised to issue a ruling before the bill, HB 2, was scheduled to take go into place on Tuesday. Texas’ GOP-led legislature enacted HB 2 over the summer, after the dramatic debate over the proposed restrictions was elevated to the national stage. All eyes were on Texas after state Sen. Wendy Davis  filibustered the bill for 11 hours straight during a special legislative session in June. Less than 24 hours after Davis successfully blocked the bill, however, Gov. Rick Perry called yet another special session to force the legislation through.

In September, more than a dozen women’s health providers sued the state to block several of HB 2′s provisions from taking effect. Their challenge specifically concerned the provisions requiring abortion clinics to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals — a medically unnecessary requirement that ultimately forces clinics to close when they’re unable to comply — and requiring doctors to use an outdated protocol to administer the abortion pill. They pointed out that the combination of those two restrictions would have “catastrophic” effects on abortion access in the state.

In his opinion, Yeakel noted that the “admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Similar logic has led several federal judges to block identical provisions in other states. Yeakel did not completely strike down the provision related to medication-induced abortions, determining that women whose lives are at risk should be able to follow the off-label procedure for taking the abortion pill.

Federal District Court Judge - Texas Abortion Law is Unconstitutional

The ruling also does not affect several of the other provisions in Texas’ omnibus law, such as the requirement that abortion clinics need to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers — which won’t take effect until 2014 — or the ban that outlaws abortion procedures after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Women’s health advocates have estimated that taken together, the harsh new regulations could force the vast majority of the state’s clinics to close, leaving more than 22,000 Texas women without any safe options for terminating a pregnancy. They warn that the law will force more low-income women to cross the border into Mexico to obtain illegal and unsafe abortion-inducing drugs. Striking the admitting privileges provision will help somewhat improve this situation, but abortion rights activists have already vowed to keep fighting the rest of HB 2.

I am a firm believer in striking down all the anti-abortion rhetoric and laws, if it's not your abortion, it's none of your business, and it should never ever be regulated by a group of old pasty white men. In the retro world of the archaic GOP, women still take a back seat when it comes to controlling their own bodies. Without any safety precautions its a dangerous ride indeed. Does it matter who's at the wheel driving the car? You can bet your sweet ass is does.

Life decisions, if there not your own - mind your own fracking business - for the bible thumping Christian; Judge not lest ye be judged - and let him, who is without sin cast the first stone [Matt. 7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged."] If it is truly wrong to abort - then let the all powerful OZ will take care of it!

I THOUGHT RICK PERRY DESPISED "OBAMACARE"?

RICK PERRY PROVES HE'S NOT DONE WITH STUPID

Politico reported Tuesday evening that Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s administration is in negotiations with the Obama White House to accept about $100 million in federal money to implement an Obamacare Medicaid program to help elderly and disabled Americans.

Perry has been a heated opponent of the health law. He refused to accept $100 billion in federal funding to expand Texas’ Medicaid program under Obamacare, which could have helped 1.5 million poor Texans afford basic health benefits. As recently as April, Perry essentially called the expansion a joke. “Seems to me April Fool’s Day is the perfect day to discuss something as foolish as Medicaid expansion, and to remind everyone that Texas will not be held hostage by the Obama administration’s attempt to force us into the fool’s errand of adding more than a million Texans to a broken system,” said Perry.

Now, Perry is seeking federal dollars for Texas’ Medicaid program anyway.

The Affordable Care Act grants state funding to expand a program called Community First Choice, which aims to improve the community-based medical services available to disabled and elderly Americans. The wildly popular program is administered through Medicaid and could prevent thousands of disabled and older Americans from being uprooted from their homes and into a long-term care facility for their treatments. Approximately 12,000 Texans could take advantage of it in the first year alone.

Perry spokespeople emphasized to Politico that the governor’s support for the program — and the Medicaid funds that make it possible — shouldn’t come as a surprise and doesn’t change his position on the Affordable Care Act.

“Long before Obamacare was forced on the American people, Texas was implementing policies to provide those with intellectual disabilities more community options to enable them to live more independent lives, at a lower cost to taxpayers,” said the spokesperson in a statement. “The Texas Health and Human Services Commission will continue to move forward with these policies because they are right for our citizens and our state, regardless of whatever funding schemes may be found in Obamacare.”

Advocates for the poor and disabled who support expanding Community First Choice under Obamacare were apprehensive to even talk about the program’s relation to the health law out of fear that Texas officials would back out of their funding bid over political considerations.

“It would be worse than a shame if Texas’s moving ahead with [Community First Choice and Balancing Incentive Program] policies — both are from the ACA — was hurt as the result of scrutiny from a press inquiry,” one Texas advocate told Politico.

Maybe it's high time for two Americas. One for Texas and the haters of the US Government, and a separate one for people who don't leave their brothers and sisters out in the cold to die - to line the pockets of corporations.

Most Talibangelicals speak with a forked tongue, Perry is no different. It seems the only talent needed to be the governor is being able to talk out of both sides of your mouth and your ass the same time.

With regards to Perry's "intellectual disabilities" comment, is there a more intellectually challenged Governor in these United States than Perry? Me thinks not!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE BEST OF RICK PERRY

TEXAS EXECUTIONER RICK PERRY

With his announcement Monday that he will not seek an unprecedented fourth full term as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry (Talibangelical) will retire from the office in January 2015. Unfortunately, Perry shall leave behind a record of right-wing extremism that few shall ever match.

Rick Perry is a special kind of stupid, unparalleled by any state Governor on record.

Below via Thinkprogess, are nine of the "best" moments from his 13 years as governor and his “oops” 2012 presidential campaign:

He allowed Texas to become the nation’s worst polluter. Texas under Perry has led the nation in carbon dioxide emissions and is home to five of the ten worst mercury emitting power plants in the country. Rather than try to do something about this, Perry sued the federal government to try to avoid complying an EPA ruling that the state was in violation of the Clean Air Act. A proud climate change denier, Perry called the 2010 BP oil spill an “act of God” while speaking at a trade association funded by BP. And his solution to the nation’s economic ills in 2011: more oil drilling.

 He executed a likely innocent man and impeded an investigation into the matter. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Huntsville, Texas after being convicted of arson and the murder of his three children. Despite significant evidence that arson had not caused the fire (thus exonerating Willingham), Perry refused to grant a stay of execution. Five years after Willingham was executed, a report from a Texas Forensic Science Commission investigator found that the fire could not have been arson. As the commission prepared to hear testimony from the investigator in October 2009, Perry fired and replaced three of its members, forcing an indefinite delay in the process. With a record of executing juveniles and mentally disabled, Perry said in a 2011 GOP presidential debate that he had “never struggled” at all with his decisions to administer the death penalty to more than 230 people.

He actively sought to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Perry argued that Texas and other states should be able to opt out of federal entitlements like Medicaid and Social Security — even though such a move would actually cost his own state’s economy billions of dollars. Despite their popularity and success, he called these programs and Medicare “Ponzi schemes,” and suggested they are actually unconstitutional. 

He consistently backed legislation to restrict women’s reproductive rights. Perry has made news in recent weeks for his embarrassing attacks on State Senator Wendy Davis (D) and his efforts to ram through a likely unconstitutional bill to shut down the vast majority of Texas clinics that provide abortion. But his attacks on women’s reproductive choice are nothing new; in 2011 he pushed for and signed “emergency legislation” to require women to have unnecessary sonograms prior to abortions. 

He demonized LGBT Texans and worked to increase legal discrimination against them. Perry was staunch defender of Texas’ unconstitutional anti-sodomy law which criminalized the private consensual sexual behavior of adults. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, Perry called ban “appropriate,” and blasted the Court decision as the result of “nine oligarchs in robes.” As a presidential candidate, he ran a shockingly anti-gay ad, blasting open service by gay and lesbian members of the Armed Services as part of President Obama’s “war on religion.” He vocally opposed the Boy Scouts of America’s half-measure allowing openly gay Scouts but not leaders, claiming the tiny step “contradicts generations of tradition in the name of political correctness.” Even in his speech Monday, he proudly boasted that Texas had defended “the sanctity of marriage” by writing discrimination into the state’s constitution. 

He backed nullification of federal laws and even raised the prospect of secession. Perry rose to national prominence in 2009 when he threatened to have Texas secede from the United States. “If Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that,” Perry told reporters after a Tea Party event. He also signed nullification legislation — a state law that portends to undo federal law, despite the Constitution’s clear guarantee of federal supremacy — as governor, the likes of which were used by secessionists in the 19th Century. 

He refused to let the federal government provide healthcare for low-income Texans, despite the highest rate of uninsured residents in the country. Health care in Texas is abysmal. More than 25 percent of Texans — 6,234,900 people and growing — lack health coverage, the highest of any state in the country. However, when Obamacare was passed and offered millions of dollars in federal money to expand Medicaid and cover poor Texans, Perry rejected the offer even though it wouldn't cost Texas a dime for at least three years. Despite his state’s awful track record on covering low-income residents, Perry claimed that Texas has the “best health care in the country.” 

He vetoed bipartisan Equal Pay legislation to protect Texas women. Though women, on average, continue to earn 77 cents for every dollar men make, Perry vetoed legislation that would have helped women fight discrimination. The bill, HB 950, which passed the Republican-held Texas legislature, would have built on the federal Lilly Ledbetter Act. Perry, worrying that the bill would lead to regulations, vetoed the measure. 

He called for repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, to end popular election of Senators and the federal income tax. In his book Fed Up!, Perry said that both the 16th and 17th Amendments were “mistaken” and should be repealed. The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income taxes and accounts for 45 percent of all revenue, while the 17th Amendment allows voters, rather than state legislatures, to choose their U.S. senators. Perry opposed both amendments, saying they were merely passed in “a fit of populist rage.” 

In his announcement, Perry noted, “Our responsibility remains to the next generation of Texans, who will inherit a state of our making. We alone are responsible for the kind of Texas that will greet them.”

Rick Perry was designed to piss Americans off, just like the plethora of other Talibangelicals running rampant in our local, state and national government. Its what they do best.

Rick Perry is the village idiot who never got reigned in - who, if he had any true ethics or empathy - he'd forever be apologizing for his ignorance- which has run rampant for much of his adult life! Perry is a true visionary and leader of the saying; " diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain."

I was really hoping that Rick Perry's secessionist dreams would have come to fruition before he quits. Unfortunately this looks like a dud. Perry believes that freedom is the greatest blessing that God can give someone - anyone who doesn't have a vagina that is. Perry states that has a "deep sense of humility" - yes this is true - that only a man like he can know exactly when life begins.

What is next for Rick Perry? Running for POTUS in 2016, yes maybe, as long as he doesn't have any debates, or have to answer any queries. Maybe Secretary of State? Prime Minister of Egypt? IRS Commissioner? NYC Comptroller? CEO of Mens Wearhouse?

We at NFTOS bid this right wing nut job a not so fond adieu, and may God help us all - wherever this buffoon lands!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

HOUSE OF HORRORS

PASTY WHITE GOP MEN OBSERVE RADICAL ABORTION LAW SIGNATURE 

Talibangelical Governors across this great Nation continue to push archaic anti-vagina, anti-women and anti-abortion legislation. The path that the GOP run state legislatures are taking is a very slippery slope.

The argument against women accessing reproductive services or benefits has never been about protecting the safety for the women or the unborn. It's always been about controlling women and their place in society. Without power to control their reproduction, and without resources available after childbirth, women lose power and the ability to influence changes in their own society.

This is why the US continues to rank at the bottom of first-world countries for maternal mortality, despite claiming to restrict abortions and public programs for the benefit of the people. As Hilary Clinton so adequately stated, "If you want to know how strong a country's health system is, look at the well-being of its mothers."


VIDEO COURTESY OF MSNBC

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

The problem with the "pro-lifers " claim is - that they have completely allowed emotion to control their thinking. It's delusional.

A solution if you will; Castration is also a very effective form of birth control and anti-abortion prevention, maybe would should recommend this to the talibangelicals. With the Talibangelicals (GOP) having such an erection and fascination for controlling the vagina, I wonder if we turned the tables on them, and started controlling their junk? I bet you the farm that "methinks thou would dost protest too much"!

Voting has consequences, and only when we wake the f*ck up, and vote with a conscience and intelligence, and not ignorance - only then can we start to turn the tide against this troglodyte like mentality of violating humans rights!


RELATED: Surrounded By Men, Ohio Governor Signs Stringent Abortion Restrictions Into Law
What's Next For Wendy Davis?

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

RAPE KITS

GOP LEGITIMATE RAPE KIT

Blog from Forward Progress:

Imagine your daughter going casually through her life. Studying for school, top of her class, just a mere 24 months from graduating with a promising future in a leading medical school to fulfill her life-long dream of being a doctor. Nearly every moment in her life has been spent geared toward achieving this goal.

Then imagine one day, she’s coming home from cramming for an extremely important final—when suddenly, and violently, she experiences the most terrifying and traumatizing event of her life.

And included with all of the horrific psycho-social, emotional and physical terrors that often haunt rape victims—she fears she might have been impregnated by her attacker. Texas State Representative Claims Emergency Room Rape Kits Can Give Abortions

Your daughter, not ready for a child and definitely not wanting one that was conceived when she was raped, wishes to find a means at which to terminate any possible pregnancy…When suddenly, Texas State Representative Jodie Laubenberg pops her head into the ER and says:

“In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out.”

And while Laubenberg didn't say this directly to a rape victim, this was her actual reasoning behind not including a rape exemption in her anti-abortion bill that’s currently being debated in the Texas legislature.

Apparently unaware that “rape kits” are equipment used by forensic experts to collect evidence from rape victims, this woman actually believes hospitals have “kits” that will “clean women right out” after being raped.

But even though “rape kits” have nothing to do with “cleaning a woman out,” Republican Rep. Laubenberg still believes your daughter has no right to have an abortion, even after being raped. She believes control over your daughter’s body belongs in the hands of the government. It doesn’t matter that she didn’t willingly have sex with her attacker, what’s done is done and your daughter will have that baby—no exemptions. Period.

This woman holds public office and is in a position of power, pushing this legislation—something I find absolutely terrifying.

How a grown woman can be so misinformed about rape, while proposing an anti-abortion bill that doesn't allow any exemptions for rape or incest, is truly astounding and downright sad.

It’s ignorant enough when some blowhard male stands up and tries to dictate to women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies—a woman should know better. Hell, a man should know better too. There’s absolutely no excuse for this level of ignorance.

Yet there goes Ms. Laubenberg proudly displaying her stupidity for the world to see.

What her anti-abortion bill also does is set the rules for having an abortion to such impossible extremes to comply with, that it’s estimated all but five abortion clinics in the state of Texas would have to shut down.

Whoever voted for this douche bag should be ashamed of themselves. It’s one thing to call yourself pro-life and oppose abortions — it’s quite another to simply be astonishingly ignorant about the violent crime of rape, and the very real situations women find themselves in afterward.

Jodi Laubenberg, is a prime example of your A-typical unlettered American Taliban-er- Ms. Laubenberg, you are today's worst person in the world!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

TEXAS GETS RADICAL ON ABORTION

More than 600 women’s health advocates crowded into Texas’ state capitol building on Sunday night, hoping to prevent a vote on a package of abortion restrictions before the state’s special session ends early this week. Ultimately, however, their efforts were unsuccessful. In the early hours of Monday morning, Republicans used their majority to cut off debate and give preliminary approval to Senate Bill 5, an omnibus measure that would force most of the abortion clinics in the Lone Star state to close their doors.

SB 5 combines several abortion restrictions that failed to advance during Texas’ regular session into one sweeping bill, and would ultimately leave Texas women with just five abortion clinics left in the entire state. Gov. Rick Perry (R) forced a last-minute vote on several pieces of anti-abortion legislation, including SB 5, to give them another chance. Since the current special session operates under different procedural rules, it’s more difficult for Democrats to block legislation from advancing.

On Thursday night, nearly 800 protesters registered to testify against SB 5. Their “people’s filibuster” stretched on for 12 hours and successfully delayed the House from voting on the restrictive measure. They tried again on Sunday night, filling the capitol rotunda with protesters as Democrats continued delaying a vote for 15 hours.

“Women are not going to tolerate the constant chipping away of their rights, we are not going to be bullied,” Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D) said on Sunday night in reference to the legislature’s attempt to push through last-minute abortion restrictions. “We are soldiers in the army of women’s rights, and while today we may be outnumbered and out gunned, our cause is just and we shall prevail.”

But around four in the morning, Republicans cut off the ongoing debate so they could finally force a vote, a decision that the Associated Press characterized as a “highly unusual and partisan move.” SB 5 won preliminary approval with a 97-33 vote. The bill still needs final approval from the House, and then it will head to a Senate vote before the special session comes to a close on midnight on Tuesday. There’s still a chance that it can be blocked if Senate Democrats successfully filibuster the vote on Tuesday.

After the House vote on SB 5, protesters lined the stairs of the Capitol rotunda and chanted, “Shame them to their faces” and “shame them for what they've done.” But State Rep. Jessica Farrar (D) Houston, the chairwoman of the House women’s health caucus, reminded the crowd of protesters that their efforts weren't in vain. “It really mattered what you did,” Farrar told the protesters, pointing out that successfully delaying the action on SB 5 will allow the Senate to attempt a filibuster.

Republicans have been sharply criticized for their attempt to push through abortion restrictions under special legislative rules after every single anti-abortion bill was successfully blocked during this year’s regular session. “Everything about the process related to these abortion regulation bills has smelled like partisan politics,” Farrar said during the late-night debate on SB 5.

Proponents of the abortion restrictions say that they are necessary measures to help protect women’s health and safety. But major medical groups in Texas — including the Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — have all come out in opposition to SB 5, and have sent letters to state lawmakers asking them to vote against it.

RELATED: RAPE KITS


NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

"FETUSES MASTURBATE"

AMERICAN TALIBAN er MICHAEL BURGESS, TODAY'S WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!

Yes that's right readers, according to Rep Michael Burgess [teabagger from Texas] - that at fifteen weeks, the male fetus can masturbate! Who knew?

As the House of Representatives prepares on Tuesday to consider huge legislative restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, one GOP congressman is using the idea that fetuses can masturbate to argue for more abortion restrictions.

On Monday evening, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), an Ob/Gyn by trade, told his colleagues to, “Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful”:

They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?

The House’s bill uses the scientifically disputed idea that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks as the basis for effectively ban all abortions after that time. Several state legislatures have passed similar bans, though just last month an appeals court struck down a ‘fetal pain’ bill in Arizona, finding that the law was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.

If this guy is your OB/GYN, run for the hills! This mentality requires a human to be of a special kind of stupid.

If fetuses do masturbate, why only male fetuses? Also, why assume that's what any fetus is doing? [demented GOP thoughts] Infants have very little motor control long after they're actually born, to assume that they're performing complex actions at 15 weeks seems really bizarre to the sane human. This is especially true because without any developed mental capability to form desire in the first place - and a genitourinary system which is not yet developed well enough at 15 weeks to even determine the gender of a fetus [which is a milestone that occurs at 21 weeks] let alone pleasure ones self- Mikey Burgess has just now entered "batshit crazy" land.

Yes this American Taliban er is a OB/GYN, and you would think he'd come up with a better theory that the laypersons would find plausible - unless, of course, he just thinks the average layperson is an idiot.

Many fruits seem to come from Texsas, can't we just allow them to secede from the country and be done with them?

Michael Burgess, you sir are today's worst person in the world! Shame on you for being such a troglodyte - that you would stoop to this level so that you could pontificate your ideology for controlling women's body parts.

Remember my favorite saying readers: "The best form of birth control is looking at congressional Republicans discussing birth control"!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

SAY IT ISN'T SO, HOARDS OF FRENCH ENTERING AMERICA THROUGH MEXICO

BEWARE THE FRENCH ARE COMING

During an appearance on a local radio station Thursday morning, Texas Senator John Cornyn (American Talibaner) claimed that people from all over the world are now entering the country illegally through Texas and insisted that any Congressional effort to reform the immigration system must invest in border security.

“You gotta stop the flow of people coming across and my friends and your friends Edd who have places in South Texas tell me, as a matter a fact a guy told me last night, he said we’ve got people coming across our place speaking Chinese, French and basically all of the languages in the world, coming through and across our southern border,” Cornyn said during an interview on KSEV.

While lawmakers agree that border security should be part of any comprehensive immigration reform package, the U.S. border is more secure than ever before. Border crossings are at 40-year low — falling to their lowest level since the Nixon administration — and net undocumented migration is at or below zero. Border agents patrol every single mile of the border every day and the vast majority of the border already meets one of Homeland Security’s highest standards of security.

“People are willing to try to weigh in and try to improve our broken immigration system,” Cornyn conceded. “What we have now is a defacto amnesty when we have 11 or 12 million folks living here who have come in without going through the proper channels.”

The group of bipartisan senators drafting comprehensive immigration reform legislation plan to introduce their bill the week of April 8 and have agreed that certain security benchmarks must be met before undocumented immigrants can apply for permanent legal status. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) — the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who is responsible for spearheading the legislation through Congress — has pledged to “proceed to comprehensive immigration reform with all deliberate speed.”

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

YOUR REQUEST FOR SECEDING HAS BEEN GRANTED

 

Many tea bagging States have wanted to secede from the Union since the re-election of Barack Obama. Well POTUS has reviewed one States such request for leaving the USA.

  

 

 

Obviously this is satire, but wouldn't this be a great letter to send to the right wing nut jobs? I would bet the farm they would turncoat as quickly as they could.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Opps, We Killed The Wrong Guy

Last year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) admitted that he “never struggled . . . at all” with whether someone his state executed might have been innocent. Yet a new book written by Columbia Law Professor James Liebman shows that Carlos DeLuna, executed by Texas in 1989, was innocent. According to Liebman, DeLuna was wrongfully convicted and executed for the murder of Wanda Lopez following a botched investigation. DeLuna and the man believed to have committed the murder, Carlos Hernandez, looked so much alike that they were mistaken for each other in photographs by family members. However, DeLuna, who was clean-shaven and wearing a white shirt, did not fit the description of the eyewitness who said that the murderer was wearing flannel and had a mustache. Police arrested DeLuna anyway and failed to do a formal lineup. Police also failed to formally examine the crime scene, ignoring foot and fingerprints, not taking blood samples, and allowing the scene to be cleaned by gas station employees.

Not only did DeLuna maintain his innocence throughout the investigation and his subsequent incarceration, he told investigators that he knew Hernandez had committed the crime. DeLuna was ignored, and during his trial prosecutors ridiculed his claim:

They told the jury that police had looked for a “Carlos Hernandez” after his name had been passed to them by DeLuna’s lawyers, without success. They had concluded that Hernandez was a fabrication, a “phantom” who simply did not exist. The chief prosecutor said in summing up that Hernandez was a “figment of DeLuna’s imagination”

By the end of a single day the investigator had uncovered evidence that had eluded scores of Texan police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges over the six years between DeLuna’s arrest and execution. Carlos Hernandez did indeed exist.

Hernandez had a criminal background that included several violent assaults. He eventually died in prison after attacking his girlfriend with a knife.

DeLuna is not the only man to be wrongfully convicted and executed by the state of Texas. There is persuasive evidence that Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted in the death of his three daughters and executed in 2004, was innocent and DNA tests have undermined the evidence used to convict and execute Claude Jones. Texas continues to lead the nation in executions, accounting for over one-third of US executions since 1976, despite the fact that there were 41 DNA exonerations there from 2002-2011.

Moreover, DeLuna’s case highlights the difficulties inherent in the permanence of the death penalty — despite conservative efforts to dismiss these difficulties. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2005 that there was not “a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit.” It’s now hard to doubt that’s not true.

Once again, a compelling argument against the death penalty. Texas murders over a dozen inmates each year and many of them had incompetent lawyers or overzealous prosecutors. Additionally, the death penalty costs around $137 million a year whereas keeping the same prisoners in prison for life would cost around $11.5 million.(California statistics).

Most importantly, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. If it was states with capital punishment would have lower crime rates than those without. The facts are reversed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Lastly it is morally wrong to compound one crime with another!



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West