Search

Just another WordPress site

Hillary ronen

Brother of Myanmar’s Suu Kyi seeks share of family property

by www.sfchronicle.com Leave a Comment

This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigate

3

BANGKOK (AP) — Myanmar’s Supreme Court heard final arguments on Monday in a long-running, bitter dispute between the country’s ousted leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, and her estranged elder brother over the property where she was held under house arrest for 15 years.

The court in the capital, Naypyitaw, agreed last October to hear a special appeal from Suu Kyi’s brother, Aung San Oo, on how to divide the family property the siblings inherited in Yangon, the country’s biggest city, his lawyer said.

The lawyer, Aye Lwin, said a special bench of the Supreme Court could reach a decision within three months and it would be final.

Suu Kyi. 77, whose elected government was ousted in an army takeover last year, already faces a slew of legal cases brought by the military. The court system has been criticized by rights groups for being under the military’s influence. The military’s seizure of power triggered widespread peaceful protests that turned into armed resistance, and the country has slipped into what some U.N. experts characterize as a civil war.

The ruling military council is generally believed to have brought those cases in an attempt to justify its takeover and prevent Suu Kyi’s return to active politics. She has already been convicted of several offenses and was transferred last week to a custom-built facility at a prison in Naypyitaw.

Aung San Oo first sued in 2000 for a share of the 2-acre (0.8- hectare) family property on Inye Lake with a two-story colonial-style building. It had been given by the government to Suu Kyi’s mother, Khin Kyi, after her husband, independence hero Gen. Aung San, was assassinated in July 1947.

Khin Kyi died in December 1988, shortly after the failure of a mass uprising against military rule in which Suu Kyi took a leadership role.

Suu Kyi helped found the National League for Democracy party but was detained in 1989 ahead of a 1990 election. Her party easily won but was not allowed to take power when the army annulled the results.

She ended up spending almost 15 years under house arrest at the property at 54 University Avenue and stayed there after her 2010 release until moving in 2012 to spend much of her time in Naypyitaw to serve in Parliament. She became the nation’s leader after the 2015 general election.

For most of her time in detention, Suu Kyi was alone at the Yangon house with just a housekeeper and at one point had to sell some of her furniture to afford food.

Later the property became a cross between a political shrine and an unofficial party headquarters when Suu Kyi was allowed a modicum of freedom. She was able to deliver speeches from her front gate to crowds of supporters gathered in the street outside.

In later years she hosted visiting dignitaries including then-U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Aung San Oo’s lawyer, Aye Lwin, said the crux of the dispute is how to divide the inherited property, which he said is worth $90 million, a figure that could not immediately be confirmed.

Lawyers for Suu Kyi could not be contacted for comment.

Aung San Oo, an engineer, had resided in the United States for several decades when he first brought suit against his sister in 2000.

That case seeking an equal partition of the property was dismissed in January 2001 on procedural grounds but Aung San Oo returned to court again and again over the following two decades to press his claims.

There was widespread speculation that the military, which has constantly harassed Suu Kyi, has encouraged his lawsuits.

A 2016 ruling by the Western Yangon District Court divided the property between the siblings. But Aung San Oo considered the decision unfair and appealed unsuccessfully multiple times for the court to have the property sold and the proceeds split between him and his sister. Only last year did the Supreme Court agree to allow him a special appeal.

Aye Lwin, his lawyer, told The Associated Press that lawyers from both sides filed final arguments in court on Monday but he declined to reveal details.

“The special appeal is just about how to divide the inheritance,” he said.

Dem Party Platform Fully Embraces Planned Parenthood, Abortion

by www.breitbart.com Leave a Comment

The increasingly radicalized Democrat Party is embracing abortion like never before in the latest draft of its platform, which includes particular support for Planned Parenthood against defunding efforts, and a vow to repeal the Hyde Amendment, a provision that prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion.

Presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has said unborn babies have no constitutional rights and that she would work to repeal the Hyde Amendment so that federal taxpayer funds would pay for abortions on demand, particularly for low-income women who use Medicaid.

In a press release, The Democrat Convention committee said about its specific inclusion of Planned Parenthood’s abortion business in the latest draft of its platform, released July 1:

The platform goes further than previous Democratic platforms on women’s reproductive rights. It champions Planned Parenthood health centers and commits to push back on all Republican efforts to defund it. The platform also vows to oppose, and seek to overturn, all federal and state laws that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment. It also strongly supports the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to healthcare around the world, including the Global Gag Rule and the Helms Amendment, which bars US assistance to other countries that provide safe, legal, abortion.

Planned Parenthood celebrated the Democrat Party’s specific inclusion of its abortion business in the platform via Twitter:

The Democratic platform now:

-Commits to #BeBoldEndHyde @PPFA #reprohealth central to everyone’s wellbeing

— Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) July 3, 2016

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards noted that abortion, i.e., “comprehensive reproductive healthcare,”  is “central” to the Democrat Party’s platform for the first time, reports the Washington Examiner .

“We also applaud the platform for affirming Planned Parenthood’s critical role in communities in the face of unprecedented attacks on reproductive health at the state and congressional levels, and the recognition that reproductive healthcare is core healthcare for women, men, and young people,” she added.

Planned Parenthood is under investigation by a special congressional panel that has probed the abortion giant’s apparent practices of selling the body parts of babies it aborts on the open market and altering the position of babies during abortion in order to harvest the most intact organs.

Column: With Roe overturned, will Democrats finally learn that losing parties can’t construct the court?

by www.latimes.com Leave a Comment

SACRAMENTO —

Elections have consequences. That’s a cliché, but clichés are born of truths. And this is a truth: If a Democrat had been elected president in 2016, we wouldn’t have a right-wing Supreme Court.

If Donald Trump hadn’t beaten Hillary Clinton, gun control laws and national abortion rights would not have been quashed by the Supreme Court last week.

The Supreme Court today would not have a 6-3 conservative majority. It would be 6-3 moderate-to-liberal. Parts of American life wouldn’t have been turned upside down.

Trump named three conservative justices to fill seats that would have been occupied by three liberals or centrists under a Democratic president.

On Friday, Trump bragged about that after the court overturned Roe vs. Wade . The former president noted he pledged during the 2016 campaign to nominate anti-Roe justices, and he did.

Advertisement

The abortion and other recent court decisions “were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised,” he said.

But Democrats weren’t listening close enough in 2016.

Let’s be honest: Democrats blew it. There could have been a better Democratic nominee than Hillary Clinton.

Someone who didn’t call Trump voters “deplorables.” Someone who had enough savvy to campaign in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that Trump won — but that Democrat Barack Obama carried four years earlier and Democrat Joe Biden also did in 2020.

In a historic reversal, the Supreme Court strikes down a half-century of nationwide abortion rights in the U.S.

Not Bernie Sanders or another lefty. Liberals finally should have learned from the court’s abortion and gun rulings that their priority must be to elect acceptable decision-makers, not to maul moderates and send messages.

And not necessarily to nominate a woman if she isn’t the best candidate. The main goal should not be to elect the first woman president — although it’s shameful we haven’t — but to install a president who can create a Supreme Court that will protect the rights of women.

Democratic leaders — the few there are — should have cajoled then-Vice President Biden into running that year, despite his grieving for son Beau, who had just died of brain cancer.

Clinton did win the popular vote — 2.9 million more people voted for her than Trump. But he won what counted: the electoral vote by carrying 30 states.

That’s all water under the bridge, another cliché. But there’s more water flowing toward that bridge, and lessons should have been learned.

Party leaders and activists should now be thinking dispassionately about who ought to be the Democratic nominee in 2024 if President Biden doesn’t run for reelection — or even if he does.

There could be more Supreme Court justices to nominate in the next presidential term. And there’ll be lots more appellate judges to name.

This November, voters will decide which party controls Congress. Republicans need to pick up just one net seat in the Senate and five in the House to take power.

Fifty-five years ago this month, California enacted the nation’s most liberal abortion law. Back then, more legislators used to think for themselves, columnist George Skelton writes.

In the next term, there are likely to be moves both left and right on abortion — Democratic efforts to restore national abortion rights and Republican attempts to ban them everywhere.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators are trying to protect abortion rights in California by crafting a ballot measure that would specifically guarantee them in the state Constitution. But who knows what a GOP Congress might hatch if a Republican is elected president in 2024?

And the modest gun control bill Congress passed and Biden signed last week should mark the first round in toughening national firearms regulations, not the final shot.

So, Democrats who want to protect their rights to abortions and gun safety in California — and restore them in other states — will need to fight for those rights at the ballot box.

California Democrats should ignore the top-of-the-ticket races for governor and U.S. Senate. They’re in the bag for incumbent Democrats Newsom and Alex Padilla.

The focus should be on a few key congressional races that will help decide House control.

Roe vs. Wade went from ‘settled’ law to overruled in a few years, thanks to four unexpected developments.

For example: The contest in northern Los Angeles County between Republican Rep. Mike Garcia and Democrat Christy Smith, a former state Assembly member. This is a rematch of a race Garcia won two years ago. But the district has been redrawn and now is slightly more Democratic in voter registration.

Democrat Rep. Katie Porter, considered a rising party star, is being challenged in Orange County by local GOP chairman Scott Baugh, a former Assembly minority leader. This is a swing district with a slight Democratic edge.

In the San Joaquin Valley, Hanford Republican Rep. David Valadao — one of 10 GOP House members who voted to impeach Trump — is in a tough reelection fight against Democratic Assemblyman Rudy Salas of Bakersfield. Democrats have a solid registration advantage in the remapped district.

Beyond our borders, there are crucial Senate races. Two are in neighboring Nevada and Arizona. Other key contests are in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Democratic politicians are talking a robust game. But will there be follow through?

Will Newsom help House candidates in California by campaigning for them and raising money? Will he lend a hand in Nevada?

“We have the capacity to turn this around,” the governor said Friday, attacking the court’s abortion ruling. “It’s time for us to wake up, control what we can control…. We can control them on election day.”

Republicans turned around the Supreme Court by out-politicking Democrats in 2016. Democrats could begin turning it back this year and in 2024 by never forgetting this major consequence of elections: Losing parties can’t construct the court.

Illinois abortion advocates expect influx of patients from out-of-state: “It reinforces my commitment”

by www.cbsnews.com Leave a Comment

Laurie, who lives north of Chicago, says getting behind the wheel is an act of activism. She drives women who need a ride to get an abortion, both locally and from out-of-state. She volunteers for the Midwest Access Coalition (MAC) , a non-profit that helps fund everything from lodging and transportation to childcare for women who need those resources to get the procedure.

Laurie said she’s driven about 20 women in the last three years.

CBS News correspondent Adriana Diaz asked, “What do you remember about the last woman you transported?”

“She was a single mom. She wasn’t getting a lot of support from her former husband. And she said, ‘I just can’t manage it as much as I would like to.’ And it was just, it was heartbreaking, and it was encouraging at the same time that she had an avenue to terminate her pregnancy, because she wanted to and felt she needed to.”

The Supreme Court’s decision striking down Roe v. Wade could create a new wave of pregnant people traveling to states where abortion is more widely available.

Illinois, which has strong abortion protections in place, is surrounded by states that have or could have restrictions on the procedure. With Roe overturned, Planned Parenthood estimates that up to 30,000 additional patients could travel to Illinois for abortions over the next year.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois has been preparing for years in case Roe fell, building a facility in Waukegan (about eight miles from the Wisconsin border), and another near Indiana.

Speaking ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday, MAC’s executive director Diana Parker-Kafka said demand for her organization’s services had already tripled this year. “Like, my phone’s vibrating every five seconds now,” she said.

And she worries that, without Roe, Illinois healthcare facilities would be stretched to capacity.

Diaz asked, “Do you expect people will have to be turned away?”

“Oh yeah. Yeah. There will be people that we won’t be able to see through their abortion care that need it. And we’re also thinking about plans on how to support those people.”

“There are anti-abortion rights activists who believe that it’s wrong to help women cross state lines to get an abortion if she’s coming from a state where it’s banned,” Diaz said. “What do you say to them?”

“I don’t think bodily autonomy should be limited by borders,” Parker-Kafka replied. “These are people making a decision that is really essential for their lives, for their families.”

“Is your organization helping people, women, skirt state laws?”

“I wouldn’t say they’re skirting state laws,” Parker-Kafka said. “If someone has an appointment at a clinic in Illinois and that care is legal, then we absolutely will help them get there.”

And for some volunteers, like Laurie, their passion is personal. She had an abortion in her thirties before she was ready for a family . “I knew immediately that there’s no way I’m going to have a child right now,” she said. “I was lucky it was after Roe. I’m old enough to clearly remember before Roe was passed. And I know what those experiences were like.”

She said ensuring access to safe, legal abortion is what drives her.

“Is it hard dropping folks off?” Diaz asked.

“Yes, yes, it is, it is. I think about them walking through the doors. They stay with me. It reinforces my commitment to keep on doing this as long as necessary – which is looking like it’s gonna be a while.”

It’s not a crime for a woman to travel to another state for an abortion – in fact, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his concurring opinion that interstate travel is protected under the Constitution.

Some local prosecutors in places like St. Louis and Dallas have also said they will not prosecute anyone who helps a woman get an abortion, even though the procedure is banned in those states.

Barbra Streisand May Move to Canada If Republicans Keep the House

by www.breitbart.com Leave a Comment

In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times ‘ Maggie Haberman released Tuesday, actress and activist Barbara Streisand said she is considering moving to Canada if the Republicans maintain a majority in the House of Representatives following the midterm election.

Asked about her mood as the November election fast approaches, Barbra Streisand said that she is having trouble sleeping at night, something that may change if the Democrats take the House.

“And if they don’t?” Haberman asked the progressive entertainer.

“Don’t know. I’ve been thinking about, do I want to move to Canada? I don’t know,” Barbra Streisand replied . “I’m just so saddened by this thing happening to our country. It’s making me fat. I hear what he said now, and I have to go eat pancakes now, and pancakes are very fattening.”

“We make them with healthy flour, though — almond flour, coconut flour,” she added.

Prior to the 2016 presidential election, Streisand floated the prospect of fleeing the United States if President Donald Trump beat his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. “He has no facts. I don’t know, I can’t believe it. I’m either coming to your country [Australia], if you’ll let me in, or Canada,” Streisand said in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter .

In September, Streisand released a new album Walls featuring the anti-Trump ballad “Don’t Lie to Me,” in which the singer accuses President Trump of being incapable of being truthful.

“I just went ballistic,” the 76-year-old said of the president to the Associated Press, who she refers to as “The Liar in Chief” and the “Groper in Chief.”

“I just can’t stand what’s going on,” Streisand continued to the news outlet. “His assault on our democracy, our institutions, our founders — I think we’re in a fight. … We’re in a war for the soul of America.”l