Connect with us

The Center Square

State prosecutors ask Supreme Court to protect veterans’ rights | Virginia

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Sarah Roderick-Fitch | The Center Square – 2023-04-17 11:16:00

(The Center Square) – Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares is leading a bipartisan group of attorneys general from 33 states and the District of Columbia in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a veteran denied certain educational benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Miyares and the coalition of attorneys general assert Virginia resident and decorated Army veteran Jason Rudisill was wrongly denied his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits.

After completing his first tour of duty, Rudisill, as an enlisted soldier, utilized his Montgomery GI Bill benefits to complete his undergraduate degree.

“[Rudisill] was twice honorably discharged, and relied on approximately 25 months of education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill before November 2007 to obtain his undergraduate degree. He then reenlisted, was commissioned as an officer, and served a third tour from 2007 to 2011,” according to the brief filed by the state prosecutors.

After completing his third tour of duty, Rudisill was accepted into Yale Divinity School with hopes of returning to the armed forces as a chaplain.

Rudisill attempted to use his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, but the VA denied his request. The VA defended its decision by saying Rudisill was not entitled to use both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post 9/11 GI Bill.

The VA specifies veterans’ preference in deciding which GI Bill they opt to utilize, “If you’re eligible for more than one education benefit, such as the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the Montgomery GI Bill, you must choose which benefit to receive.”

Advocates for Rudisill argue veterans with “multiple requisite periods of service” are entitled up to 48 months of educational benefits.

During Rudisill’s third tour of duty Congress passed the Post 9/11 GI Bill.

“He applied for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits based on his understanding that, under the Bill, he had approximately 22 months of education benefits remaining out of his 48 aggregate months,” the brief explained.

The VA determined Rudisill’s Post-9/11 benefits would be limited to 10 months and 16 days, “because [Rudisill] had used some of his entitled benefits under the prior version of the GI Bill.”

The Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill entitle eligible veterans to receive up to 36 months of tuition payouts. The Montgomery GI Bill offers up to a set monthly amount, which is sent directly to the student. The Post-9/11 GI Bill, pays the tuition to the school. Under the Post-9/11 GI Bill students are eligible for housing or book stipends, which is not included under the Montgomery GI Bill.

The coalition of attorneys general  contends hundreds of thousands of veterans’ “rights” are in “jeopardy” by the Federal Circuit’s decision and are requesting the Supreme Court “secure” those rights by striking the lower court’s decision.

The state prosecutors say the decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit to uphold the VA’s decision in the case of Rudisill v. McDonough, could negatively impact post-9/11 veterans.

“The Federal Circuit took away both James Rudisill and thousands of other post 9/11 veterans’ GI education benefits,” said Miyares. “This decision actively hurts veterans’ reentry into civilian life and deprives them of earned benefits.”

Miyares is concerned the decision will negatively impact veterans as they transition out of the military.

“Over 700,000 veterans live in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This decision actively hurts veterans’ reentry into civilian life and deprives them of earned benefits,” Miyares said.

The Center Square reached out to the VA for comment; it had yet to respond at the time of publication.

State prosecutors joining Miyares are from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.

Source link

News from the South - Louisiana News Feed

Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:37:00

The Make America Healthy Again movement has gained significant attention throughout the nation and many of the top initiatives highlighted have found their way into state legislatures this session.

Louisiana is no exception and Senator Patrick McMath, R-Covington, has, via Senate Bill 14, proposed a significant cleanup of our food supply, especially focused on kids. Backed by the popular support of the MAHA Moms, this bill has three major parts that are worth examining separately for their merits.

First is a ban of several “ultra processed” foods in school meals. In this case the term ultra processed is defined as products that contain any one of 13 specifically referenced compounds. Of these the first 7 are artificial dyes, like red dye No. 40, derived from petroleum byproducts that serve a singular role to make food more visually appealing.

We should all be asking ourselves why we ever allowed this stuff to find its way into our food in the first place. Several of these synthetic dyes have been shown to be associated with various harms ranging from ADHD to allergies and tumors.

Most of the other compounds on the list sound like they should have a skull and cross bones on the label. Take the bread additive azodicarbonamide as an example. If you thought that sounded like something you should not eat, you would be right.

It breaks down into urethane (yes, like the paint), a known carcinogen, and is banned is just about every country but the U.S.

In the case of school lunches, the child has no choice in the matter. They eat what they are provided and we have an obligation to protect them from toxic substances in the cafeteria.

Second is a labeling requirement for foods containing the substances in the school lunch ban portion, plus a few more, known to have a questionable safety profile that are banned in other countries.

It directs manufacturers to place a label on any food or drink containing these chemicals that clearly alerts the consumer of the fact that it contains something that is banned in other countries.

Last, but certainly not least, is a provision to reform of the Supplemental Nutritional Aid Program, once known as food stamps. This program is federally sponsored, and provides food assistance to families with an income below 130% of the federal poverty line. This would be about $31,200 net yearly income for a family of four.

In our inflationary economic environment, every penny counts and when it comes to food and obtaining the maximum calories for minimum dollars is a necessity. Historically, the cheapest foods happen to also be the least healthy in many cases, condemning those dependent on the program to poor health.

Soft drinks containing very high sugar or sugar substitutes are a major contributor to the chronic diseases that plague our health system like obesity and diabetes, especially in children. This bill directs DCFS to seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Louisiana to prohibit use of SNAP to purchase soft drinks.

Ultimately, the federal government should go a step further and incentivize healthier alternatives for SNAP beneficiaries, but this bill represents a major step in the right direction that can be accomplished at the state level.

The old saying goes: “You are what you eat.” We should keep this literal and obvious truth in mind when we think about how to turn the tide on chronic disease in our nation.

Let us begin by protecting the children who are too young to choose for themselves and providing better information for adults who can. SB 14 will accomplish both goals and move Louisiana to the forefront of the movement to Make America Healthy Again.

Dr. Ralph L. Abraham, M.D. is the  Louisiana Surgeon General

The post Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article presents a clear ideological stance that aligns with health-conscious, regulatory-focused policy perspectives often associated with center-left viewpoints. It advocates for government intervention to regulate food safety, particularly in school meals and assistance programs like SNAP, emphasizing protection of public health and vulnerable populations such as children and low-income families. The tone is supportive of regulations to restrict harmful substances and promote healthier choices, which suggests a bias favoring increased oversight and reform in food policies rather than a neutral, detached report.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Kenneth Schrupp – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:30:00

(The Center Square) – California Board of Parole Hearings ordered the release of convicted child murderer Herbert David Brown III, making this the second announced early release of a convicted child murderer in recent weeks.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow, whose office convicted Brown for beating his 22-month-old daughter Lily to death, has requested that California Gov. Gavin Newsom use his authority to overturn the parole board’s decision. All current board members are Newsom appointees.

“Brown has done self-help programming but didn’t express responsibility for Lily’s death until Inmate Brown was told that failure to do so was a bar to being paroled,” wrote Dow. “Even then, Inmate Brown’s account lacked credibility.”

“Brown has significant mental health issues that appear to require ongoing monitoring and treatment,” continued Dow. “Inmate Brown’s relapse prevention plans are inadequate and superficial.”

Brown entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for the murder. Lily was found dead with multiple injuries, including a fractured skull.

Brown was under the influence of methamphetamine when he killed his daughter. He now identifies as a woman and has served 12 years of his sentence.  

According to the most recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment on Brown from 2023, he was found to be a “higher moderate” risk for violence. 

Brown was first granted parole in October 2024, after which California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has appointed all current members of the California Board of Parole Hearings, referred the parole decision back to the parole board for review. The board has since reaffirmed its earlier decision, and Dow is seeking residents to write to the governor to use his constitutional authority to override the parole board.

“Precious Lily deserves better. The time is now Governor Newsom, please help ensure that we have Justice for Lily Brown,” said Dow.

“The Governor has authority under California Constitution, Article V, Section 8(b) to reverse a decision to release a convicted murderer on parole, but must do so within 30 calendar days,” continued Dow. “The decision was issued on April 22, 2025.”

There is currently no release date set for Brown.

Two weeks ago, the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision to approve the early release of convicted child murderer Josue Herrera, who was found to have beaten his girlfriend’s 2-year-old son to death, sparked national outrage against the state’s apparent leniency toward murders of young children. 

Dow said Brown’s early release is possible due to Proposition 57, passed in 2016. 

Prop. 57 was written to only allow early release of “prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.” 

However, because the state automatically classifies any crimes not specifically classified as violent to be non-violent, such as drive-by shootings and assault with a deadly weapon, many violent crimes are not technically considered “violent” per se.

Dow also noted Prop. 57 allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior or educational achievements, even to those who committed crimes classified as violent.

“This means that even those inmates sentenced for violent offenses, like murder of a child, are eligible to be released much earlier than under the law that was in effect prior to the passage of Proposition 57,” said Dow.

The post Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Right-Leaning

This article presents a narrative that is critical of the California Board of Parole Hearings and Governor Gavin Newsom’s appointments, focusing on the early release of convicted child murderers. The tone and framing emphasize public safety concerns and criticize the perceived leniency of the parole system under progressive policies like Proposition 57. The language used highlights the gravity of the crimes and frames the parole decisions as contentious and problematic, which aligns with a right-leaning viewpoint commonly skeptical of criminal justice reforms associated with more liberal or progressive politics. While the article reports facts, the selection and emphasis on these facts, and the inclusion of the District Attorney’s plea for the governor to intervene, reveal a conservative-leaning perspective.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Brett Rowland – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 15:45:00

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump took measures to lessen the impact of tariffs on U.S. automakers, but vehicle prices are expected to increase. 

“We just wanted to help them during this little transition, short term,” Trump said. “We didn’t want to penalize them.”

The 25% tariff on imported cars remains, and a new 25% tariff on auto parts will go into effect May 3. But Trump’s latest executive order allows reimbursements for U.S. producers importing car parts, which will be subject to 25% tariffs starting May 3. The maximum reimbursement will be 3.75% of the value of domestically produced cars. The cap falls to 2.5% for the second year and is phased out entirely after that.

Trump’s executive order also means that automakers that pay tariffs on imported cars won’t be required to pay other import duties, such as those on steel and aluminum.

“They all want to come back to Michigan and build cars again. You know why? Because of our tax and tariff policy,” Trump said Tuesday during his rally in Michigan. “We’re giving them a little time before we slaughter them if they don’t do this.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the goal was to get automakers to create more U.S. jobs.

“President Trump has had meetings with both domestic and foreign auto producers, and he’s committed to bringing back auto production to the U.S.,” Bessent said. “So we want to give the automakers a path to do that, quickly, efficiently and create as many jobs as possible.”

Still, vehicle prices are expected to increase as tariffs reshape the market.

Cox Automotive Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke said “uncertainty remains acute, especially regarding what will happen with the tariffs.” 

“Supply has since tightened and prices have moved higher,” he said. “With higher prices, urgency has diminished.”

Smoke said the next two months could set the stage for the rest of the year. 

“Instead of putting China first, I’m putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first,” Trump said at the Macomb County Rally.

Even before Trump’s auto tariffs, cars were too expensive for many Americans. The average price of a new vehicle in the U.S. is above $48,000, according to Cox Automotive. Real median household income was $80,610 in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, more than 40% of new-vehicle sales by volume in 2024 were priced below $40,000.

The post Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article predominantly reports on actions taken by President Donald Trump regarding tariffs on U.S. automakers with largely neutral language, including direct quotes from Trump and officials, as well as commentary from a chief economist. However, the framing subtly aligns with a center-right perspective by emphasizing Trump’s economic policies favoring U.S. industry and job creation, and by using language that reflects his own nationalist and protectionist rhetoric (“putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first”). The article presents these policies without overt criticism, thus reflecting a viewpoint sympathetic to the administration’s economic nationalism rather than a strictly neutral or critical stance. This suggests a center-right bias, leaning towards support for Trump’s economic agenda.

Continue Reading

Trending