Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Fall River’s Iwo Jima Monument
Our thanks to Atty. Brian Cunha
His generosity made the Memorial Possible
The Right Way to Deal with Lawsuit Abuse isn’t in Congress
(Chuck Muth) – With a Republican-sponsored bill (HR 1215) titled “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017” you’d think we were talking about repealing and replacing ObamaCare, right? Wrong.
As is the case with so many deceptively-named bills sponsored by both parties – as well as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders – this bill isn’t about health care reform. It’s about tort reform – “tort” being the technical term for what you and I call “lawsuits.”
The official description of HR 1215 states…
“This bill establishes provisions governing health care lawsuits where coverage for the care was provided or subsidized by the federal government, including through a subsidy or tax benefit.”
Now don’t get me wrong. Tort reform is a good idea. Indeed, conservatives have been supportive of efforts to reign in medical lawsuit abuse for years. But there’s a “right” way and a wrong way to address this issue. And the right way in this case is the constitutional way. Specifically, the 10th Amendment way…
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Fortunately, the Founders didn’t leave the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government to our imagination. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lays those powers out for us, including the power to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, establish rules for immigration, to coin money and establish post offices.
The power to establish a universal, federal law dictating how much money can be paid out on a medical malpractice lawsuit doesn’t seem to be in there. And in fact, 30 states already have their own individual laws governing such lawsuits. So where and how does this become a federal matter?
Fortunately, Republicans in Congress years ago established a rule that requires all bills to state “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill.”
As such, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, maintains in his “Constitutional Authority Statement” that Article 1, Section 8 “grants Congress the power to provide for uniform laws that remove barriers to trade and facilitate commerce nationwide.”
Talk about a thin reed!
Reporter at the Constitutional Convention: “Mr. Madison, could you give us some examples of what you mean by interstate commerce in the Commerce Clause?”
James Madison, author of the Constitution: “Certainly. Thank you for the question. That would include sugar, cotton, rum, clothing, food, wagon wheels, candles, pottery, furniture and, oh, yes, medical malpractice lawsuits.”
To borrow a popular phrase, “Come on, man!”
Politicians have been grossly expanding the definition of the Commerce Clause for decades in efforts to impose greater federal control over more and more aspects of the daily lives of ordinary American citizens. It’s a dangerous threat identified by President Ronald Reagan in a 1980 speech…
“I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level, and I believe we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment.”
The power to regulate malpractice lawsuits through Congress was simply never intended by the Founders who wrote the Constitution. Those men fully understood the dangers of giving the federal government too much power and went out of their way to limit it.
Of course, as we all know, it’s possible to rationalize just about anything – and Rep. King is attempting to do just that with HR 1215.
But as Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation points out, “Doctors are licensed by the states, and state legislatures and state medical authorities have the authority to promulgate the standards of medical care in their states.”
Tort reform is a good idea. Federalizing it is not. Congress should reject the misnamed “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017.”
Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a conservative grassroots advocacy organization
As is the case with so many deceptively-named bills sponsored by both parties – as well as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders – this bill isn’t about health care reform. It’s about tort reform – “tort” being the technical term for what you and I call “lawsuits.”
The official description of HR 1215 states…
“This bill establishes provisions governing health care lawsuits where coverage for the care was provided or subsidized by the federal government, including through a subsidy or tax benefit.”
Now don’t get me wrong. Tort reform is a good idea. Indeed, conservatives have been supportive of efforts to reign in medical lawsuit abuse for years. But there’s a “right” way and a wrong way to address this issue. And the right way in this case is the constitutional way. Specifically, the 10th Amendment way…
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Fortunately, the Founders didn’t leave the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government to our imagination. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lays those powers out for us, including the power to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, establish rules for immigration, to coin money and establish post offices.
The power to establish a universal, federal law dictating how much money can be paid out on a medical malpractice lawsuit doesn’t seem to be in there. And in fact, 30 states already have their own individual laws governing such lawsuits. So where and how does this become a federal matter?
Fortunately, Republicans in Congress years ago established a rule that requires all bills to state “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill.”
As such, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, maintains in his “Constitutional Authority Statement” that Article 1, Section 8 “grants Congress the power to provide for uniform laws that remove barriers to trade and facilitate commerce nationwide.”
Talk about a thin reed!
Reporter at the Constitutional Convention: “Mr. Madison, could you give us some examples of what you mean by interstate commerce in the Commerce Clause?”
James Madison, author of the Constitution: “Certainly. Thank you for the question. That would include sugar, cotton, rum, clothing, food, wagon wheels, candles, pottery, furniture and, oh, yes, medical malpractice lawsuits.”
To borrow a popular phrase, “Come on, man!”
Politicians have been grossly expanding the definition of the Commerce Clause for decades in efforts to impose greater federal control over more and more aspects of the daily lives of ordinary American citizens. It’s a dangerous threat identified by President Ronald Reagan in a 1980 speech…
“I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level, and I believe we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment.”
The power to regulate malpractice lawsuits through Congress was simply never intended by the Founders who wrote the Constitution. Those men fully understood the dangers of giving the federal government too much power and went out of their way to limit it.
Of course, as we all know, it’s possible to rationalize just about anything – and Rep. King is attempting to do just that with HR 1215.
But as Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation points out, “Doctors are licensed by the states, and state legislatures and state medical authorities have the authority to promulgate the standards of medical care in their states.”
Tort reform is a good idea. Federalizing it is not. Congress should reject the misnamed “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017.”
Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a conservative grassroots advocacy organization
Muslim Groups Unhappy With Indianapolis ‘Perfect Man’ Billboard
A billboard in Indianapolis, IN is stirring controversy among local Muslim groups, says a Fox 59 report.
The billboard, seen going southbound I-465 near the Washington Street exit mocks the prophet Mohammed as “The Perfect Man.”
The billboard then lists six bullet points about Mohammed to describe him. The points include: “Married a 6-year-old,” “Slave owner & dealer,” “rapist,” “Beheaded 600 Jews in one day,” “13 wives, 11 at one time” and “Tortured & killed unbelievers.”
“I was a little disappointed when I saw that,” Farial Khatri of the Islamic Society of North America told Fox 59.
“We do support free speech, but we do realize this is also rooted in bigotry,” Kahtri added.
According to Fox 59, the Muslim Alliance of Indiana plans to raise money to put up its own billboard close by to spread a message of peace and kindness.
|
Trump's Shadow Cabinet
By Jimmy Mengel
 |
It’s been a hell of a ride for President Trump so far...
He’s learning every day that being President — as he himself put it — is “more work” than he is used to.
That’s one reason he relies on a trusted group of advisors to help him navigate the Washington miasma. Some of whom, like Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner, you’ve surely heard of. But many others keep a low profile.
Now, many reporters in the famous “fake news” arena like to say that Donald Trump doesn’t take advice from anyone. In the end he calls the shots himself...
We can see this play out in the ways he’ll contradict even his most trusted advisors after public statements.
While Congress struggled in trying to pass his “travel ban”, his Justice Department made changes and adjustments in order to make it constitutionally viable. This included softening the language of the bill and making it more likely to pass.
Instead of letting his advisors do their job, he decided to tweet that the bill was now “a watered-down politically correct version”, irritating the people involved in actually passing the bill.
Last month spokesman Sean Spicer went on television in a highly publicized press conference to say that FBI director James Comey was let go because of his treatment of Hillary Clinton during the election and that he “acted based on the clear recommendations” of the attorney general and deputy attorney general.
But in an interview with NBC, Trump told Lester Holt that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation because he was “a showboat.” I don’t care what your opinion of Trump is, the fact that he would call someone else a showboat is simply hilarious.
However, while he may shoot from the hip on Twitter and in interviews, Trump does indeed take advice from a select group of people. He speaks regularly with members of the business community and the media establishment.
I think the key to understanding his moves going forward is to look at who he respects and listens to most. You could call them his shadow cabinet.
Let’s take a quick look at the men behind the curtain…
Donald Trump Just Shut Down This Muslim Mayor
The Western World was rocked by the horrific Islamic terrorist attacks at London Bridge on Saturday.Sadiq Khan – London’s Muslim mayor – reaction to the tragedy did not contain the urgency many believed the situation called for.
However, Trump’s reaction on twitter showed how the war against terror must be conducted.
Trump called out Khan for telling his citizens they had “no reason to be alarmed” about an increased police presences.
At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is “no reason to be alarmed!”
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2017
Trump – and Khan’s critics – contended that residents of London had plenty to be alarmed about.
The police presence was absolutely necessary because this was the second major terrorist attack to occur in London in recent weeks.
A suicide bomber had killed women and children at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester barely 10 days before the London Bridge attack.
Trump also ripped the political correctness that has infected the West’s thinking on how to deal with Islamic terrorism.
We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don’t get smart it will only get worse
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2017
Khan tried to brush off Trump’s response.
The Guardian reported:
“Donald Trump has criticised the mayor of London, hours after seven people were killed and 48 injured in a terror attack in the centre of the city.
“At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack,” the president wrote on his personal Twitter account, “and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’”
In response, a spokesman for Sadiq Khan said the mayor had “more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump’s ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks”.
Khan commented on the attacks in a statement overnight and in a television interview earlier on Sunday. In the interview, he said there was “no reason to be alarmed” by an increased and armed police presence in the city that day.”
Do you agree with Trump or Mayor Khan?
Khan commented on the attacks in a statement overnight and in a television interview earlier on Sunday. In the interview, he said there was “no reason to be alarmed” by an increased and armed police presence in the city that day.”
Do you agree with Trump or Mayor Khan?
Comey Contradicted Sworn Testimony on Memo Leak, Trump’s Lawyer Says
Former FBI Director James Comey contradicted his previous sworn testimony while testifying before the Senate Thursday, Trump’s lawyer said in a post-hearing press conference.
Fmr. FBI Director James Comey
Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz explained that, while Comey testified that he didn’t leak memos regarding Trump to the media until after a Tweet by Trump prompted him to do so, The New York Times actually quoted the memos a day before Trump’s Tweet:
“Today Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president. The leaks of this privileged information began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated that he disclosed to them the conversations that he had with the president during their January 27th, 2017 dinner and February 14th, 2017 white house meeting.
“Today Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends of his reported memos of those privileged communications, one of which he testified was classified. Mr. Comey also testified that immediately after he was terminated, he authorized his friends to leak the contents of those memos to the press in order to, in Mr. Comey's words, quote, prompt the appointment of a special counsel, closed quote.
"Although Mr. Comey testified that he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that "The New York Times" was quoting from those memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey's excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to be entirely retaliatory.
“We will leave to it the authorities to determine whether these leaks should be investigated along with all the others that are being investigated.”
Comey has accused President Trump of ordering him to drop an investigation into Michael Flynn’s dealings with Russia regarding the 2016 presidential election.
BOOM! Pro-Trump Eric Bolling OBLITERATES “Dumb” Senator On Live TV
If there’s one question we may never know the answer to, it’s whether liberals play dumb or really are as dumb as they appear.
Eric Bolling, a Trump-supporting patriot on FOX Business, RIPPED APART liberal U.S. Senator Angus King of Maine for essentially saying there’s nothing that can be done to stop terror. Bolling said it was the “dumbest thing [he’d] heard in a very long time.”
Bolling, who co-hosts The FOX News Specialists, was discussing recent worldwide terror attacks with his panelists. Since Ramadan began, there has been a burst of Islamic terrorism throughout the Western world, including the London Bridge attack, another attack at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, and an attack in Melbourne, Australia.
Muslim terrorists are waging war everywhere they can. It’s what they promised to do. ISIS leaders are promising terrorists they will enter Heaven and gain 72 virgins if they kill whites and Christians during Ramadan.
With so much violence, you would think there would be no more room for doubt that Islam is a problem. We’re at a point now where there’s nearly an Islamist terror attack every day. The bad news is this. Liberals have their heads in the sand.
Eric Bolling SLAMMED one of them on his show. He included Senator King’s comment, where he claimed the only thing that could stop terrorism would be to put the entire country on a lock down, North Korea-style — but that nobody would want that.
Wow, Senator. That’s the best example of a straw man argument I’ve ever seen! So, in Senator King’s perverse worldview, we have to choose between becoming North Korea or not doing anything at all. So we might as well do nothing and let Muslim terrorists keep killing us.
Eric Bolling had the perfect response to Angus King’s statement: “Congratulations, Senator, you take the prize for the dumbest comment heard from a lawmaker in a very long time” (via FOX News).
Eric Bolling had the perfect response to Angus King’s statement: “Congratulations, Senator, you take the prize for the dumbest comment heard from a lawmaker in a very long time” (via FOX News).
So there’s nothing that can be done at all? We can’t improve our vetting? We can’t cut off immigration from the Muslim world? We can’t preempt terrorism by acting on intelligence of known threats? We can’t monitor radical mosques in our communities? No. According to the wise Senator King, our only two choices are willful death and complete government control.
What do you expect from a politician? Unlike the free market, where quality and service matter, there are no qualifications — aside from age and citizenship, in some cases — to be elected to governmental office. All you have to do is promise to parrot the talking points the globalist elites provide you. If you can do that effectively, you’re guaranteed to be a senator for life. Isn’t that right Mr. King?
It’s all a show of mock ignorance. Liberals would like to believe there are no options for dealing with terrorism. They don’t want to do anything because they WANT the terror to continue. They fully condone the destruction of the American way of life to “get back” at us for our “arrogance”.
The only way we will ever be truly safe is to vote these hack politicians out of office. As long as we have corrupt rats in Congress, our national security will be at risk. If you have establishment puppets representing you, give them the boot immediately!
Was Angus King’s comment the dumbest thing you’ve heard in years?
The ‘Independent’ Mr. Comey
His prepared testimony shows why he deserved to be fired.
The Senate Intelligence Committee released James Comey’s prepared testimony a day early on Wednesday, and it looks like a test of whether Washington can apprehend reality except as another Watergate. Perhaps the defrocked FBI director has a bombshell still to drop.
But far from documenting an abuse of power by President Trump, his prepared statement reveals Mr. Comey’s misunderstanding of law enforcement in a democracy.
Mr. Comey’s seven-page narrative recounts his nine encounters with the President-elect and then President, including an appearance at Trump Tower, a one-on-one White House dinner and phone calls. He describes how he briefed Mr. Trump on the Russia counterintelligence investigation and what he calls multiple attempts to “create some sort of patronage relationship.”
But at worst Mr. Comey’s account of Mr. Trump reveals a willful and naive narcissist who believes he can charm or subtly intimidate the FBI director but has no idea how Washington works. This is not new information.
When you’re dining alone in the Green Room with an operator like Mr. Comey—calculating, self-protective, one of the more skilled political knife-fighters of modern times—there are better approaches than asserting “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Of course the righteous director was going to “memorialize” (his word) these conversations as political insurance.
Mr. Trump’s ham-handed demand for loyalty doesn’t seem to extend beyond the events of 2016, however. In Mr. Comey’s telling, the President is preoccupied with getting credit for the election results and resentful that the political class is delegitimizing his victory with “the cloud” of Russian interference when he believes he did nothing wrong.
Mr. Comey also confirms that on at least three occasions he told Mr. Trump that he was not a personal target of the Russia probe. But Mr. Comey wouldn’t make a public statement to the same effect, “most importantly because it would create a duty to correct” if Mr. Trump were implicated. This is odd because the real obligation is to keep quiet until an investigation is complete.
More interesting is that Mr. Trump’s frustration at Mr. Comey’s refusal raises the possibility that the source of Mr. Trump’s self-destructive behavior isn’t a coverup or a bid to obstruct the investigation. The source could simply be Mr. Trump’s wounded pride.
The most troubling part of Mr. Comey’s statement is his belief in what he calls “the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch,” which he invokes more than once. Independent? This is a false and dangerous view of law enforcement in the American system.
Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.
Mr. Comey says Mr. Trump strongly suggested in February that he close the Michael Flynn file, but after conferring with his “FBI senior leadership” he decided not to relay the conversation to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. If he thought he was being unduly pressured he had a legal obligation to report, and in our view to resign, but he says he didn’t because “we expected” that Mr. Sessions would recuse himself from Russia involvement.
Well, how did he know? Mr. Sessions didn’t recuse himself until two weeks later. Mr. Comey also didn’t tell the acting Deputy AG, who at the time was a U.S. attorney whom Mr. Comey dismisses as someone “who would also not be long in the role.”
This remarkable presumptuousness is the Comey mindset that was on display last year. He broke Justice Department protocol to absolve Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material, without the involvement of Justice prosecutors or even telling then Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Mr. Comey’s disregard for the chain of legal command is why Mr. Trump was right to fire him, whatever his reasons.
Also on Wednesday two leaders of the intelligence community told the Senate Wednesday that they had not been pressured to cover up anything. “I have never been pressured—I have never felt pressured—to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relation to an ongoing investigation,” said Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers added that he never been asked “to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump announced that he is nominating respected Justice Department veteran Christopher Wray as the next FBI director. Let’s hope Mr. Wray has a better understanding of the FBI’s role under the Constitution than Mr. Comey does.
Trump Should Argue His Own Case in Front of Supreme Court
President Trump’s single greatest strength is that he — and he alone — is his own top adviser and most trusted confidant. It’s just he, himself and @realDonaldTrump.
Which is kind of funny because Mr. Trump’s greatest weakness also happens to be that he — and he alone — is his own top adviser and most trusted confidant.
It tells you just how clueless the media is that they think Steve Bannon is somehow the actual president and Mr. Trump is just some kind of puppet.
Mr. Trump is no one’s puppet. But he does listen to people who he thinks know more of the details and particulars about an issue. And then he makes up his own mind.
It is how Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is sitting on the Supreme Court today.
But then you have a problem like Mr. Trump’s totally legitimate travel ban that died the death of a thousand legal paper cuts by silly judges who have no business being on the federal bench in the first place.
Grasping desperately for power, and certain that anything and everything is their domain, these black-robed harlots refuse to acknowledge the simplest truth that, of course, the executive branch can keep anybody from entering the country that they see fit.
If voters don’t like the policies of the executive branch, they can vote the president out of office in the next election.
Anything short of leaving that authority in the hands of the executive branch means we have entirely surrendered the notion of self-governance.
Anyway, Mr. Trump’s first travel ban hit a judicial buzz saw, and then a bunch of damned lawyers from Washington walked in offering to help. Before it was all over, they had watered it down to something unrecognizable.
They said it would get the job done without hurting so many people’s feelings. Mr. Trump shrugged and said fine.
Of course, everybody got offended all over again anyway.
Meanwhile, what is NOT happening? Well, for starters, terrorist attacks carried out by insane radical Islamic monsters have not stopped.
In fact, the frequency has reached a pace that it’s hard to keep track of the ones that happened in just the past week. And that’s just the attacks in the civilized world.
The ones being carried out in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria don’t even make the evening news anymore.
The one in London hit a raw nerve, and Mr. Trump surveyed his still-gummed-up travel ban and was reminded of the bill of goods those damned Washington lawyers sold him. So he popped off.
On Twitter, naturally.
“The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.”
That would be the “Justice Dept.” as in HIS Justice Department, and “S.C.” would be the Supreme Court, before which his Justice Department lawyers will appear in order to defend his revised “Travel Ban.”
Seriously, this place really should not be this complicated.
It is a simple problem. We have all these people all around the world who want to bring “death to America,” and we would like to stop letting them in.
But because Washington politics is so broken and the federal government is so ungovernable, Mr. Trump finds himself in a legally precarious predicament — only slightly of his own making.
He is now the named chief executive who authored a travel ban that is now before the Supreme Court, while also at the same time publicly trashing his own said travel ban.
I get that it looks bad, but honestly, a reckless tweet is only a tiny, small percentage of the problem here.
The real problem is that we have a lecherous judiciary that usurps executive authority, a drunken Congress that doesn’t care and a federal leviathan that is so big and ungovernable that it is no longer remotely answerable to the voters.
But all anybody wants to talk about is how it’s all Mr. Trump’s fault because he is pissed off and tweeted about it.
Now I will give you this: Though I am a tremendous fan of the president tweeting, and I wish he would tweet more, frankly, I do wish that when it comes to legal matters, he would, as they say, cease and desist.
Someone last week on the endless cable blabber fest had it about right. When it comes to things like this — especially when Twitter is involved — Mr. Trump instantly grabs a grenade and pulls the pin.
And then he throws the pin.
It reminds me of some buddies of mine growing up. They thought it was hilarious to get some friends over to stand out in the middle of a field and fire an arrow straight up into the sky and out of sight — and then watch everyone scatter.
The problem with this fun little game, of course, is that the genius with the bow is in just as much trouble as everybody else.
Truth is, Mr. Trump really should kick his Twitter habit when it comes to anything legal. Or he could just go ahead and name himself his own solicitor general and argue his own case before the Supreme Court himself.
Actually, that might not be such a bad idea.
Mr. Trump is so good at doing his own press, maybe he should try his hand at representing himself before the bench.
It would, at least, be highly entertaining.
Craig Price charged with attempted murder in Florida prison stabbing
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) – Notorious Rhode Island serial killer Craig Price has been charged with attempted murder for allegedly stabbing a fellow inmate in Florida last month.
Price, 43, is facing one count each of attempted murder and contraband in prison, according to documents from the state attorney’s office in Florida.
According to court documents obtained by Target 12, prosecutors say Price used a 5-inch homemade knife to repeatedly stab another inmate named Joshua Davis in a “premeditated design” and with “intent to kill.”
Investigators say Price entered Davis’s cell and stabbed him repeatedly for 20 seconds before the inmate was able to run.
“Price caught up with Davis inside the quad and tackled Davis, continuing the attack with the knife,” prosecutors said in court documents. “Two officers with the assistance of two inmates, were able to restrain Price and enable Davis to once again escape the attack.”
The other inmate was stabbed five times, twice to the head, twice to the back and again to the chest, according to court documents. He was transported to the hospital where he was treated and has since been released.
Price is scheduled to be arraigned in a Florida courtroom on Aug. 3.
Investigators said the attack – which happened at the Suwannee Correctional Institution on April 4 – was caught on a prison video system. Court documents do not spell out what precipitated the attack.
Price was 15 years old when he admitted he stabbed to death 39-year-old Joan Heaton and her two daughters, 10-year-old Jennifer and 8-year-old Melissa, in 1989. He also confessed to the murder of 27-year-old Rebecca Spencer two years earlier.
He was sent to Florida in 2004 as part of an interstate compact because the R.I. Department of Corrections deemed him a security risk to himself and others at the Adult Correctional Institutions in Cranston.
Price’s Rhode Island sentence is set to expire this October, but he would then have to serve an additional two-and-a-half years in Florida for stabbing a prison guard there in 2009.
Price is not serving time for the murders because he was a juvenile when the crime took place, and state law at the time meant he would be released from prison when he turned 21; those laws have since been changed. Instead Price is serving time for a patchwork of infractions including contempt of court and other incidents stemming from his time behind bars.
The newest case against Price could be significant because the clock is ticking on his release: including his sentence in Rhode Island as well as the 2009 Florida assault, Price is scheduled to be a free man in 2020.
In 2015, a Target 12 investigation found Price accrued 43 infractions while he was incarcerated at the ACI in Cranston. Seven of those were either dismissed or lessened to a warning.
Tim White ( twhite@wpri.com ) is the Target 12 investigative reporter and host ofNewsmakers for WPRI 12 and Fox Providence. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook
Evidence Confirms Claim Senator Jeanne Shaheen Is a Direct Descendant of Pocahontas
4
Publicly available family tree data found on the website ancestry.com confirms Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s (D-NH) claim that she is a direct descendant of Pocahontas, which she made earlier this week in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash.
“Can you confirm for me that you are a direct descendant of Pocahontas?” Bash asked Shaheen in the interview.
“I can, and I actually have the family tree to show that,” Shaheen responded.
“Kind of ironic, because President Trump tries to belittle Shaheen’s colleague, Elizabeth Warren, by calling her Pocahontas, because Warren once claimed Native American heritage,” Bash said.
The report then switched to a video of President Trump at a campaign rally, where he says “And Massachusetts is represented by Pocahontas, right, Pocahontas.”
The camera then came back to Bash, who asked Shaheen “Have you thought about bringing this to the president?”
“No,” Shaheen responded quickly.
“Have you told Elizabeth Warren?” Bash asked.
“It’s kind of a sensitive topic, so, probably not,” Shaheen answered.
Warren’s claim that she has Native American ancestry, first made in the 1980s and 1990s in both her professional biographies and official reports filed by her employers at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Harvard Law School, were completely disproven when they first came to public attention during her 2012 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection and Breitbart News have reported extensively that there is zero credible evidence–either documentary or genetic–that backs up her claim of Native American ancestry.
Warren has been criticized for using the claim that she is a Native American minority to advance her professional career.
Even if Warren had Native American ancestry, Warren would not meet the definition of Native American used by the EEOC and employers such as Harvard, because she has no ancestry and never had any “cultural identification” such as membership in a Native American tribe (both ancestry and cultural identification are needed).
Warren’s inability to produce any credible supporting evidence or publicly acknowledge that her claims are false have led to unceasing public ridicule. This began during the 2012 Senate campaign, when Boston talk show radio king Howie Carr and others gave her several nicknames–ranging from “Fauxcahontas” to “Lieawatha.”
President Trump picked up on the theme in the 2016 general election, when Warren was a vocal critic of his candidacy, and repeatedly referred to her as “Pocahontas” in public rallies and tweets.
Sen. Warren has apparently stopped making the claim that she has Native American ancestry.
In her recent book, This Fight is Our Fight, Warren does not assert that she has Native American ancestry.
Instead, she says on page 64, “My Aunt Bee was born in 1901 in Indian Territory, in an area that later became Oklahoma.”
And on page 228 she says of President Trump, “When he called me Pocahontas, it was definitely not intended as a sign of respect to the Native Americans he had insulted and attacked for years and who actively opposed him during his campaign.”
Warren’s failure to assert her prior claims of Native American ancestry in that book could be construed as a tacit admission that her previous assertions to the contrary are incorrect. However, she has not yet withdrawn those claims, nor admitted publicly that they are incorrect.
Had Warren, when her Native American problem was discovered in 2012, simply fessed up to what she did, this probably wouldn’t be an issue anymore. Instead, Warren stood by her story, relying on convoluted (and mostly disprovable) “family lore” as a defense.
Sen. Shaheen has never used her verifiable, though miniscule, Native American ancestry to advance her professional career. (As a 12th generation descendant of Pocahontas, she can claim about twenty-four one-thousandths (.024) of one percent Native American ancestry.)
In contrast, the controversy surrounding Sen. Warren’s disproven claim of Native American ancestry is that she used it to enhance her attractiveness to employers, particularly Harvard Law School, which hired her away from the University of Pennsylvania Law School on a full time basis in 1995 after she spent a year as a visiting professor there in 1993.
Based on the family tree data found at ancestry.com, Pocahontas was Sen. Shaheen’s 10th great-grandmother, which makes Shaheen a 12th generation descendant of the iconic Native American heroine. (Note: Back in 2002, Slate reported that Bill Shaheen, Sen. Shaheen’s husband, said of his wife, “Her 11th great-grandmother was Pocahontas.”)
The line of descendancy, based on a preliminary review of that data, is as follows:
John Rolfe (1585-1622) married Pocahontas (1596-1617) in Jamestown, Virginia in 1614
1st generation: Their son was Thomas Rolfe (1615-1680)
2nd generation: His daughter, Jane Rolfe (1650-1676), married Robert Bolling (1646-1709)
3rd generation: Their son was John Fairfax Bolling (1676-1729)
4th generation: His son was John Kennon Bolling (1700-1757)
5th generation: His son was Benjamin Bolling (1734-1832)
6th generation: His son was Jesse B. Bolling (1758-1841)
7th generation: His son was Elijah Bowling (1798-1883)
8th generation: His son was Jesse Boyd Bowling (1822-1878)
9th generation: His daughter, Isabel Bowling (1874-1955), married John Lafayette Stillings (1869-1940)
10th generation: Their son was Ernest Stillings (1898-1940)
11th generation: His daughter was Belle Ernestine Stillings (1922-2016), who married Ivan E. Bowers (1920-1982)
12th generation: Their daughter was Jeanne Bowers, born in 1947, who married Bill Shaheen, moved to New Hampshire, and became a United States Senator there in 2008.
Breitbart News asked Sen. Shaheen’s office on three separate occasions to provide her family tree, but the office declined.
Subsequently, after developing this family tree based on evidence found at ancestry.com, Breitbart News emailed Sen. Shaheen’s office to confirm this chart confirms with the senator’s information, but has not received a response.
Ironically, in her 2014 U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire, Sen. Shaheen–the true descendant of Pocahontas–defeated the same Republican, Scott Brown, who lost to Sen. Warren in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in neighboring Massachusetts.
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/06/httpift_9.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment