In a recent interview, Syria's President has called upon all Syrian factions to join with Palestinian groups to fight against Israel.

Syrian President Bashar Assad's long term plans include a continued struggle against Israel, Lebanese officials visiting Syria told Lebanese paper Al Akhbar.

 

"The commitment of the Syrian community to resist the Israeli enemy can help fortify the internal struggle facing Syria," Assad told the officials.

 

According to the official, Assad called on all Syrian factions to join with Palestinian forces in resisting Israel along the Golan Heights.

 

"We have to protect our oil from the Americans... and employ the proceeds in the development of our country and in the conflict with the Israeli enemy," Assad said.

Read more at Jerusalem Post

In a further demonstration that reproductive rights should not be left to politicians with very little understanding of biology, Representative Trent Franks reiterated the false belief that few women ever get pregnant from rape.

The author of a bill that would ban abortions nationwide after 20 weeks said Wednesday that the rate of pregnancies resulting from rape is “very low.”

Democrats immediately pounced on the remark made by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) at a House Judiciary Committee hearing as reminiscent of comments made by Senate candidate Todd Akin last year.

 

The committee was considering amendments to Franks’s bill. Franks opposed an amendment that would include exceptions for rape and incest to the 20-week abortion ban.

 

“The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said.

 

Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California objected to his statement, calling it “astonishing” in light of the controversial remarks from Akin and other GOP candidates last year.

 

“The idea that the Republican men on this committee think they can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous,” Lofgren said.

 

Akin received significant blowback last August for saying that the victims of “legitimate rape” very rarely get pregnant because their bodies prevent them from doing so.

 

The amendment providing an exception for rape and incest was defeated along party lines.

Israel's airstrikes in Syria this week were actually aimed at Hezbollah - to prevent them from gaining additional weapons.

Reports of Israeli airstrikes in Syria have frequently obscured the issues that are really driving Israel's decision-making. The most important notion to dispel is that Israel has decided to play an active role in the Syrian conflict. Not so. Israel has no interest in getting drawn into the quagmire. Its target is strategic weapons destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Its actions were driven not by ambitions to shape Syria's future, but by concerns about the strategic balance between itself and the Hezbollah-Iran axis.

 

Israel has followed the Syrian conflict with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it appreciates the potential benefits of President Bashar al-Assad's departure, which would be a blow to Iran and Hezbollah. On the other, the Syrian mess is empowering Islamists and jihadists, who may later threaten Israel directly, ending nearly 40 years of quiet on the Israeli-Syrian border.

 

Israeli decision-makers are under no illusion that they can elicit a desirable outcome in Syria. Instead, Israel prefers to keep a low profile and focus on other pressing challenges, paramount among them Iran's drive towards nuclear weapons. Israeli actions in Syria are therefore focused on addressing direct threats to its security, particularly the transfer of strategic weapons to Hezbollah.

Read more at The Guardian

Following a Pentagon report stating that over 70 sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces occur every day, President Obama lambasted military members who commit sexual assaults and rape saying they betray the uniform they wear.

President Barack Obama accused members of the military who perpetrate sexual assaults of “betraying the uniform” they wear after the Pentagon reported Tuesday that there are more than 70 sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces each day.

“They may consider themselves patriots, but when you engage in that kind of behavior, it’s not patriotic, it’s a crime,” Obama said at a joint press conference with South Korean President Park Geun-hye that also touched on conflicts in Syria and North Korea.

Obama said he’s asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to “not just step up our game, we have to exponentially step up our game to go at this thing hard” to combat sexual assaults in the armed forces.

Read the full article at Politico

Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Peter King (R-NY) have introduced a House version of the Toomey Manchin Bill to expand background checks - a bill 92% of Americans support and the Senate failed to pass.  Read the details below and for more information, look here for details of the Senate version.

Bipartisan Group of Reps. Co-Authors Legislation to Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals, Dangerously Mentally Ill

 

Washington, DC, Apr 16 - U.S. Reps. Pete King (R-NY) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) last night introduced H.R. 1565, the U.S. House of Representatives’ version of the Manchin-Toomey Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013. U.S. Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Pat Meehan (R-PA), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Peter Defazio (D-OR) joined King and Thompson in co-authoring the legislation. The King-Thompson legislation is identical to the bipartisan agreement on background checks struck by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).

“Background checks are the first line of defense against criminals and the dangerously mentally ill getting guns. This bill is comprehensive, it is enforceable, it will save lives, and it will protect the rights of law abiding Americans to own guns. It’s time for Congress to act. The American people are getting a vote in the Senate. They deserve one in the House,” said Thompson and King in a joint statement

This bipartisan legislation will expand the existing background check system to cover all commercial firearm sales, including those at gun shows, over the internet or in classified ads. It provides reasonable exceptions for family and friend transfers.

Under the legislation, background checks would be conducted though a federally licensed dealer. Licensed dealers will run background checks on potential buyers and keep records of sales in the same manner as they have for more than 40 years. Failure to conduct a background check on is punishable by up to five years in prison.

The bill also improves the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by incentivizing states to improve their reporting of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill by eliminating unnecessary responsibilities for states and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records to NICS. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.

Like the Manchin-Toomey legislation, the King-Thompson bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and makes the misuse of records to create a registry a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.

H.R. 1565 is backed by a number of organizations including the pro gun group, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the second-largest gun rights organization in the country. It has also been endorsed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

The full text of the bill is available here.

As the Boston area was gripped by the manhunt that followed the Marathon bombings late last week, the opinion pages of the Concord Monitor just up the road in New Hampshire were consumed with another subject: Senator Kelly Ayotte’s vote against legislation to expand background checks for gun purchases. The paper’s lead editorial Sunday decried Ayotte’s rationale for opposing the bill as “utter nonsense” and an “abomination.” The letters to the editor section is riddled with anti-Ayotte broadsides, the tenor of which are conveyed by their headlines: “Ayotte’s vote should propel her out of office.” “Beyond disappointed.” “Ayotte did not represent her New Hampshire constituents.” “Enabler of murderers.” “Ayotte’s ‘courage.’” “Craven pandering.” “Reckless vote.” “Illogical vote.”

 

If gun control advocates are going to have any chance of resurrecting reforms after last week’s crushing defeat, much is going to depend on the depth of the initial backlash against the Democratic or swing-state Republican senators who opted to vote with the gun lobby. In a piece the day after the vote, I lamented that some leading liberals and mainstream media types were so willing to chalk the vote up to the predictable dynamics of the gun control issue, thereby essentially letting the senators who cast the crucial votes against the legislation off the hook for their decisions. One major columnist avoided holding accountable the senators who took the actual votes by wishing that President Barack Obama had acted more like a president in a movie.

 

But there are signs that the reaction against the vote will be stronger than what has followed prior setbacks for the cause. First, of course, there was the angry cri de coeur from Gabby Giffords. On Friday came spontaneous protests around the country at district offices of senators who voted no. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has set up a number for people to text so they can be patched through to the office of a senator who went the other way. “In years past when we lost on a vote, we had to generate [reaction], we had to push people,” says Brian Malte, the group’s director of mobilization. “This time it’s just directing it to the right place. It’s ‘I’m so angry, what should I do?’”

Read more at New Republic

On Earth Day, we republish this article by JAC's Wendy Abrams about how Keystone is not just another pipeline - it is much much more.

I've had many friends, even like-minded, eco-friendly friends, ask me, "Why is Keystone a big deal? Isn't it just another pipeline?"

 

Keystone is a big deal, because it is NOT just another pipeline. It is the make-or-break piece of the puzzle for profitably exploiting the tar sands in Canada. Without the Keystone pipeline, tar sands will still be dug up; but with Keystone, the profits soar, making it a much more lucrative deal for the Canadian oil companies; and to maximize their profits, they will dig up as much as possible. And therein lies the problem. The sheer volume of tar sands awaiting exploitation is staggering. When asked about the impact on climate change, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, Dr. James Hansen, explained burning the tar sands would be "game over" for the climate.

 

Specifically, this is what Hansen had to say about carbon emissions that would come from the tar sands:

 

"The level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet's species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk."

 

That's a pretty compelling argument if you ask me. Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion?

 

If we listen to the top climate scientists, we should leave the tar sands where they are, underground. But others will still insist we are going to keep burning oil for years to come, so aren't we better off using Canadian oil rather than Middle Eastern oil? No. Canadian tar sands are a thick, heavy tar (it is the black "goo" in asphalt) and the oil that is produced is 19 percent dirtier and 17 percent more carbon intensive than Middle Eastern crude. In addition, the exploitation of the oil is a much more energy intensive process. They are building entire power plants in Alberta, just to power the tar sands processing.

 

Of course, the Canadian oil companies would prefer to dig up the tar sands; after all, they have a hefty profit to make. Proponents of Keystone claim the Canadians will dig up the tar sands whether we participate or not. But there are limited options for bringing the tar sands to market. They can ship to Vancouver, but that would require crossing the tribal lands of the First Nations, who are strongly opposing the tar sands and have been successful, thus far, in fending off exploitation of their lands. TransCanada could ship the tar sands to the east coast of Canada, but it is a more expensive option that makes the sale of the tar sands less economically viable.

The most profitable option by far, is building the Keystone Pipeline, which may explain why they have invested so much in lobbying in Washington. The Canadians have a lot at stake. But let's remember, this is Canadian tar sands, and Canadian profits, not American. And the only thing worse than caving to oil lobbyists is caving to foreign oil lobbyists.

 

Not only do we not make the profits from selling the oil, if we flood the energy markets with dirty tar sands, there will be less demand for American renewable energy. So by helping our neighbor to the north, we are handcuffing our own future. Keystone will create approximately 5,000 short term construction jobs, and according to the State Department report, only 34 long term jobs. The U.S. Council of Mayors report estimated that the potential for jobs in the renewable energy markets is 1.2 million jobs. By building more pipelines, we are choosing a future of fossil fuels rather than renewables.

 

Furthermore, more fossil fuels means more climate change. And the cost of climate change is enormous. Hurricane Sandy cost $50 billion. The drought in 2012 cost billions. It will cost hundreds of billions to move interstate highways when sea levels rise. There is a cost to transition our economy off of fossil fuels, but the cost of inaction is far higher.

 

Finally, Keystone is a big deal because it is a reflection of the commitment and integrity of our leaders. President Obama made strong statements in both his 2013 inaugural address as well as his State of the Union speech. But actions speak louder than words. Saying we need to address climate change, while moving towards a future of tar sands is completely counterintuitive. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have the chance to change the course of history; they have the chance to be visionary leaders and transform our nation to a society built on innovation that provides both an environment and economy that are sustainable.

 

That is why Keystone matters.

The recent debate on legislation to prevent gun violence provides a clear contrast in the ideologies of the right wing agenda and the rest of the country.  In loud strident voices warning of a federal government that ultimately plans to invade homes and seize all guns, the right wing throws reason and logic out and focuses on the fears of a small base.  The gun lobby acts as if the Second Amendment were the final words from a much higher authority and that those words declared all citizens should be armed.  They should be armed with anything that they want - large magazine clips, military-assault type weapons, armor-piercing bullets and lots and lots of guns.

When asked about the First Amendment, which speaks to liberty and life, the Second Amendment trumps that. It does not matter if most Americans want to feel safe in malls and theaters and if most Americans want children to be safe in schools; only the gun matters. Background checks which might prevent the mentally ill, criminals, or known violent domestic abusers from having guns are an infringement on their rights. It would appear that this only applies to guns. Most people submit to background checks for a new job or a mortgage. Most people even submit to giving airlines their personal information. But the gun lobby decries a federal registry as part of a "slippery slope" for the government to track innocent citizens. What about the GPS in your phone? Your EZ Pass? Of course, few mention that it against current federal law to even have a gun registry, making the whole argument a red herring.

Senators Manchin and Toomey, along with Senators Kirk and Schumer, have co-sponsored a bi-partisan amendment to the gun violence prevention bill which will begin debate this week. It is weak, but it is a start. However there are proposed amendments by some that would make the bill a pro-gun bill. Senator Graham wants an amendment saying those who are mentally ill can still own weapons. He also believes that those on the terror watch list should be able to buy guns. Other amendments being discussed would allow active service military personnel to purchase weapons at their legal residences as well as where they are stationed. But the one that scares me the most says if a person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state, they can carry that weapon in a state where it is prohibited - called concealed reciprocity. As a resident of NJ, I do not want to see our very tough laws weakened. And therein lies the conundrum - is any law better than none? Is it a victory or a loss?

This week and next will be a display of bravo on the part of the Second Amendment absolutists. They will fill the air waives with false statements and try to score points with a small base led by gun groups.

The only counter to that is our voices. We must continue to call and email Congress. If you have time, go to DC or find a local demonstration to show that you want to protect your children, your fellow citizens and yourselves. Stay with JAC as we support legislation that will begin to work on the violence in America. Everyday 33 people are shot by guns. Can any of us afford to stay silent?

As of April 10, 2013, Senators Manchin and Toomey have introduced a bi-partisan compromise for gun control legislation.  Below are the key points as highlighted by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

• The single most important thing Congress can do to reduce gun violence and save lives is to require comprehensive and enforceable background checks.
• Criminals and other dangerous people avoid background checks by buying firearms, often at gun shows and online, from unlicensed “private sellers” who are not required by federal law to conduct the checks.
• More than 6.6 million gun sales were transferred in 2012 without a criminal background check, accounting for approximately 40 percent of all gun sales.
• 62 percent of private gun sellers on the Internet agreed to sell a firearm to buyers who said they probably couldn’t pass a background check. At gun shows, this percentage is 63 percent.

• Senators Toomey and Manchin have crafted a strong compromise that would require background checks for all gun sales at gun shows and online.
• The bill would not apply to direct sales between friends and family members. It would only cover gun sales if they are sold in commercial settings, including online or at gun shows.
• Expanding the current, enforceable background check system to gun sales in commercial settings would reduce crime and save lives – without imposing any new record keeping burden on private sellers.
• Federal law would continue to prohibit the creation of a national gun registry. And all information identifying the buyer generated by the background check would still be destroyed by the FBI within 24 hours.
• Dealers who conduct checks for private sellers would keep a copy of the background check form, as they have for more than 40 years. If a gun is recovered in a violent crime, those records help law enforcement track down the perpetrator.
• The bill will strengthen the background check system by improving states’ procedures for reporting mental health and other relevant records of prohibited purchasers into the system.
• The bill will also clarify key laws for gun owners and cut through red tape for licensed gun dealers and for gun owners in the military.

• Focusing on commercial gun sales is critically important for shutting down criminal access to guns.
• Today, a single website, Armslist.com. hosts over 73,000 ads for guns, 94 percent of which are posted by private sellers who are not required to conduct background checks. That’s a 500 percent increase in sales volume from just 16 months ago.
• There are more than 4000 gun shows held every year in the U.S., and 30 percent of guns involved in federal gun trafficking investigations are connected in some way to gun shows.

• Background checks are the only systematic way to stop felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill from buying firearms.
• Since its inception, NICS has blocked over 2 million gun sales to people prohibited from purchasing them. Ninety percent of background checks are completed in less than two minutes.
• In Washington, D.C., and the 14 states that go beyond federal law by requiring background checks for private handgun sales, there are:
  • 38 percent fewer women shot to death by intimate partners;
  • 17 percent fewer firearms aggravated assaults; and
  • 48 percent less gun trafficking.
• 98.4 percent of the American population lives within 10 miles of a licensed gun dealer.

• Independent national polls have found that 90 percent of all Americans strongly support background checks for all gun sales.
• They are joined by 82 percent of gun owners – including 74 percent of NRA members.
• Numerous national law enforcement organizations, faith leaders, gun violence survivors and family members – and more than 1.5 million Americans have come together to call on Washington to fix our broken background check system and save lives.

In the first 3 months of 2013, state legislators have introduced 694 provisions aimed at reproductive rights and abortion, according to Guttmacher Institute.

In 2013, as in recent years, state legislatures are devoting significant attention to issues related to reproductive health and rights. During the first three months of the year, legislators have introduced 694 provisions on these issues, and 93 have been approved by at least one legislative body.

 

Also in line with recent experience, abortion restrictions are at the center of state legislative activity. About half (47%) of all reproductive health measures introduced in the first quarter of the year seek to restrict access to abortion. But unlike in recent years when the thrust of legislative activity was on regulating abortion (e.g., requirements that women undergo an ultrasound, clinic regulations or insurance coverage restrictions), legislators this year seem to be focusing on banning abortion outright—either by declaring that personhood begins at the moment of conception or by prohibiting abortion even during the first trimester of pregnancy.

 

In a positive development, two states were poised at the end of March to enact legislation expanding access to comprehensive sex education; if enacted, it would be the first time since 2010 that any state has done so. (See here for a more detailed version of this analysis).

Read more at Guttmacher Institute

Are you listening? Do you hear? Read my lips soon there will be no abortions in states controlled by Republican legislatures. Over the last decades, abortion rights have been chipped away. The remaining few are now being hit with a large sledge hammer. Unconstitutional laws are passed that take away a woman’s right to choose. Fetal heartbeat detection is propelling the laws. Hear a heartbeat, restrict abortion.

States are vying for the most restrictive abortion laws. It does not seem to matter that in Roe vs Wade the time limits had to do with viability and established 24 weeks as the time factor. Apparently, now a fetus can survive even before it is conceived, according to some of the personhood laws or weeks before a woman even knows that she is pregnant. In early March, the Arkansas legislature overrode Governor Beebe’s veto to pass one of the strictest abortion laws in the country. The Human Heartbeat Protection law says that once a heartbeat is detected (around 12 weeks using an abdominal ultrasound) abortion is banned.  

After Arkansas passed this law, the North Dakota legislature surpassed Arkansas by sending the governor two new anti-abortion laws and considering two Personhood bills. One of the laws bans abortion at 6 weeks and the other prevents abortion based on genetic defects or fetal abnormality. One of the personhood measures would ban abortion completely and the other would complicate birth control, stem cell and invitro fertilization.  In fact the laws are so extreme that a group of Republican legislators are protesting the laws. Rep. Kathy Hawken (R-Fargo) is outraged by the attacks on women. She says that the focus is on the unborn while neglecting protections and help for the born. This past week, Governor Dairymple signed into law the most restrictive abortion laws in the country - essentially banning abortion from the state.

Legislators in Kansas were spurred into action and are planning a massive attack on women’s rights. A veritable omnibus of anti-woman legislation. These laws will outlaw abortion by defining life at conception, tax abortion services and providers, make doctors give false information about abortion, have no exceptions for rape or incest and will not allow sex education in schools.

Heartbeats and fetal pain laws push the accepted time limits for abortion. They use pseudo-science as their basis and have no regard for established law. These "right-to-lifers" callously make their laws based on their own belief system and show no concern for the women who are having their right to choice, privacy and health taken away. They are interested in the "unborn." But once the unborn is born many of them want to cut all health care, education and support for them. And the woman or the family are not even a part of the contemplation. There is nothing subtle about their goal -- they want to do away with the right to choose for all women.

We need to stand with the protests in Arkansas and North Dakota. We need to help JAC elect leaders at the federal level who will support and advance a pro-woman agenda.

One aspect of the strictest abortion law in the country?  A 800-mile long area where no abortion services are available.

On Tuesday, Gov. Jack Dairymple signed legislation that would give North Dakota the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. The legislation bans the procedure as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, something that can happen as early as six weeks in; imposes the first state ban on abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome; and makes it generally more difficult for a doctor to perform the procedure by requiring those who do to have hospital-admitting privileges.

 

The measures, which wouldn't go into effect until Aug. 1, are likely to face a serious legal challenge in court, and many expect the heartbeat ban to be overturned, something even Dairymple hinted at when signing it into law. "Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade," the governor said this week, referring to the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at around 22 to 24 weeks.

 

As unlikely as the law is to survive, ABC News does a good job of illustrating the indirect—but perhaps not unintended—impact of the ban if it holds up: The likely closure of Fargo's Red River Women's Clinic, which according to the Guttmacher Institute has existed as the lone abortion provider in the state since 2001.

 

map image from Slate.com

Read more at Slate.com

On the passing of Rabbi Herschel Schacter, we remember his part during the liberation of the Jewish prisoners at Buchenwald as the first Jewish chaplain to enter the camp. A beautiful rememberance notes his discovery of several children in the camp, including a teenaged Elie Weisel.

The smoke was still rising as Rabbi Herschel Schacter rode through the gates of Buchenwald.

 

It was April 11, 1945, and Gen. George S. Patton’s Third Army had liberated the concentration camp scarcely an hour before. Rabbi Schacter, who was attached to the Third Army’s VIII Corps, was the first Jewish chaplain to enter in its wake.

 

That morning, after learning that Patton’s forward tanks had arrived at the camp, Rabbi Schacter, who died in the Riverdale section of the Bronx on Thursday at 95 after a career as one of the most prominent Modern Orthodox rabbis in the United States, commandeered a jeep and driver. He left headquarters and sped toward Buchenwald.

By late afternoon, when the rabbi drove through the gates, Allied tanks had breached the camp. He remembered, he later said, the sting of smoke in his eyes, the smell of burning flesh and the hundreds of bodies strewn everywhere.

 

He would remain at Buchenwald for months, tending to survivors, leading religious services in a former Nazi recreation hall and eventually helping to resettle thousands of Jews.

 

For his work, Rabbi Schacter was singled out by name on Friday by Yisrael Meir Lau, the former Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, in a meeting with President Obama at Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial.

Read more at the New York Times

What a difference three years makes.

In 2010, Nebraska passed the country’s most restrictive abortion law that barred abortions after 20 weeks. By March 2013, 12 states have done so — or passed restrictions even earlier in the pregnancy, like North Dakota’s six-week ban.

These are the states you see in orange, in this graphic below, which uses data from the Guttmacher Institute to map all the laws that ban later-term abortion in the United States. The slightly lighter states represent those where a ban exists but is not in effect, due to a pending legal challenge.

Read the whole article and explore the map at Washington Post.