Thousands of protesters in New York demanded an end to income inequality and housing foreclosures. Police fired tear gas to disperse marchers in Oakland, Calif. And black-clad demonstrators smashed windows in Seattle and occupied a building owned by the Catholic archdiocese in San Francisco.

Activists across the U.S. joined in worldwide May Day protests Tuesday, with anti-Wall Street demonstrators leading the way in some cities as they tried to recapture the enthusiasm that propelled their movement last fall.

While some protesters clashed with police, the melees were far less violent than ones that erupted last fall when the movement was at its peak. Marches and strikes led to a handful of arrests but no major disruptions.

Many of the rallies, which drew activists pushing a variety of causes, also did not have the same drawing power that gatherings had last year for the Occupy movement or a half-dozen years ago for May Day rallies for immigration reform.

In recent years, activists in the U.S. used May Day to hold rallies for immigrant rights, but the day has been associated for more than a century with workers’ rights and the labor movement both in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Read More at OfficialWire. By Terry Collins, AP.

Photo Credit: DoctorTongs (Creative Commons)

The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.

Read More at The Washington Times. By Victor Morton.

The regional Environmental Protection Agency executive who told an audience his “philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of” energy companies has quit.

In a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson over the weekend, Al Armendariz, the former top environmental official in the South and Southwest Region, said he regretted the comments but boasted of his “integrity and hard work.”

“As I have expressed publicly, and to you directly, I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator,” he wrote. “As importantly, they do not represent the work you have overseen as EPA administrator.”

He continued, “I take great pride in having built a career based on integrity and hard work. These are the principles that guide me personally as well. While I feel there is much work that remains to be done for the people of this country in the region that I serve, after a great deal of thought and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that my continued service will distract you and the agency from its important work.”

His words came in a Texas meeting in 2010.

Read More at WND

(CBS News) — House Republicans investigating the Fast and Furious scandal plan to pursue a contempt citation against Attorney General Eric Holder, senior congressional aides told CBS News.

The resolution will accuse Holder and his Justice Department of obstructing the congressional probe into the allegations that the government let thousands of weapons fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

The citation would attempt to force Holder to turn over tens of thousands of pages of documents related to the probe, which has entered its second year.

For months, congressional Republicans probing ATF’s Fast and Furious “Gunwalker” scandal – led by California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, have been investigating a contempt citation. They’ve worked quietly behind the scenes to build support among fellow Republicans, since it could ultimately face a full House vote.

CBS News has confirmed that House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, was provided a 48-page long draft by Issa, who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Read More at CBS News. By Sharyl Attkisson.

Photo Credit: ryanjreilly Creative Commons

On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. United States, involving the constitutionality of the State’s effort to combat illegal immigration. In one sense, it was a rematch between former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for Arizona, and the current Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, contending for the United States. The two had squared off just a month before in United States v. Florida, the battle royale over the constitutionality of the ObamaCare mandate requiring everyone to purchase health care insurance prescribed by the federal government.

In each case, the justices, by their questions and comments, appeared to disfavor the Obama administration’s position. In the ObamaCare case, several justices expressed concern that, if the individual mandate were to be found constitutional, it would dismantle the federal system, rendering the Tenth Amendment reservation of powers to the States and the people a dead letter. Now, in the Arizona immigration case, several justices expressed concern that the Obama Administration’s claim of “exclusive power” to regulate immigration would have a similar impact on the independence and sovereignty of the 50 states.

The issue arose early in the oral argument, even before the solicitor general could make his claim of exclusivity. Justice Scalia kicked off, asking Mr. Clement whether he would concede “that the State has to accept within its borders all people who have no right to be there, that the Federal Government has no interest in removing … and the State has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there.” Remarkably, Mr. Clement did not answer the justice’s inquiry with a firm no, prompting Justice Kennedy to inquire: “Can we say, or do you take the position that a State must accept within its borders a person who is illegally present under Federal law?” This time Mr. Clement answered: “I think my answer to that is no.” But he did not back up his answer with either reason or conviction, resting Arizona’s case on the sole ground that the state has the constitutional right to help the federal government to enforce federal law.

In contrast, General Verrilli boldly rejected Mr. Clement’s basic argument that the Arizona immigration law was nothing more than the state “aid to Federal immigration enforcement,” when as a matter of fact, “Arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the State. That is something Arizona cannot do because the Constitution vests exclusive –“

Read More at Western Journalism. By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson.