Thousands of years ago, hobbits roamed a lush, green land. They gathered food, took shelter in cozy holes in the earth, and even battled dragons. This is no fantasy epicâ€”itâ€™s the likely lifestyle of an ancient human relative that thrived on the island of Flores in Indonesia.

 Discovered in 2003 in Liang Bua cave, Homo floresiensis stood about three and a half feet (1.1 meters) tall and weighed around 75 pounds (35 kilograms). Nicknamed for the diminutive heroes in J.R.R. Tolkien's famous novels, the real-life hobbits made stone tools and might have survived predatory attacks from komodo dragons. Even more exciting to anthropologists, the discovery team originally estimated that these â€śhalflingsâ€ť lived as recently as 12,000 years ago, which would mean that they outlived Neanderthals and might well have crossed paths with modern humans.

 However, a fresh look at the site where the fossils were found puts a twist on the tale: The latest evidence suggests that hobbits vanished from the island far earlier than thought, casting the chances of a cross-species encounter in a new light.

 â€śSince 2007, a lot more of the cave has been excavated,â€ť says study co-author Matthew Tocheri of Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Researchers initially used chemical clues in the soil around the fossils to figure out when layers of sediment were laid down and thus how old the bones and tools found inside them must be. In the latest work, the team found that the layers of sediment in the cave were not all evenly deposited and so varied widely in age even at similar depths.

 The new analysis, published today in Nature, asserts that the skeletal remains of H. floresiensis are more likely between 100,000 and 60,000 years old, and their stone tools date from as far back as 190,000 years to around 50,000 years ago. That suggests these evolutionary cousins did not exist for long after modern humans arrived in the region some 50,000 years ago.

 â€śAt the time of the initial discovery, not enough of the older deposits had been exposed, and this led to an error in the interpretation of how the dates obtained at that time applied to the sediments that contained the hobbit remains,â€ť says Tocheri, who received funding from the National Geographic Society's Waitt Grants Program for this work.

 Layered Story

 While earlier investigations focused on the caveâ€™s center and eastern wall, the current study, conducted by many of the same researchers, expanded excavations between these areas and toward the rear of the cave. Older deposits in certain sections of the cave had eroded away, creating a steep slope near the entrance that became filled in with younger sediments, which caused the original misinterpretation.

 To ensure that the new age estimates are accurate, the team used five independent dating methods, ranging from the uranium decay rate in bone to luminescence in soil, which measures the amount of time since sand was last exposed to sunlight.

 The erosion may also explain why excavators were unable to find all the bones from the upper body of the first known hobbit specimen. According to Tocheri, â€śif the erosion had continued for just a little longer, then the entire skeleton would more than likely have been lost forever.â€ť

 View Images Archaeologists excavate in Liang Bua cave, the site where the "hobbit" humans were discovered in 2003. Photograph byÂ Liang Bua Team

 But age is just one of many bones of contention regarding H. floresiensis. Since the initial discovery, at least six additional hobbits have been exhumed in the cave, and biological anthropologists have been wrestling with issues ranging from how they first migrated to Indonesia, to the reasons for their diminutive size, to whether they even qualify as a unique human species.

 â€śEvery finding just makes it more mysterious,â€ť says Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist and emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History who was not involved in the study. â€śNobody could ever have imagined a hominid that looked like the one from Flores. Itâ€™s the kind of thing only nature could come up with.â€ť

 Some experts contended that the hobbitâ€™s stature and small brainâ€”about one-third the size of an adult humanâ€™sâ€”mean that the fossils belong to diseased modern humans with dwarfism, Down syndrome, or microcephaly, a developmental condition that produces a small head. Though many of these theories still circulate, a 2007 analysis conducted by Tocheri revealed that the wrist bones of H. floresiensis had very little structural similarity to modern humans and were more comparable to early hominins and chimpanzees, providing strong evidence for a separate species.

 RELATED: Ancient Little People Found? Watch as a scientist uncovers tiny human bones in a tropical island cave, in what could be a major discovery.

 The prevailing theory is that H. floresiensis is either a descendent of a hominin that arrived on Indonesia in hobbit form, or a descendent of Homo erectus that evolved into its smaller stature once on the island. This evolutionary process, called island dwarfism, occurs when a species becomes progressively smaller to reduce its food requirements on a resource-deficient island. The excavation site at Liang Bua was littered with remnants of pygmy elephants, which adds credence to this theory.

 Not a Fellowship?

 Though no direct evidence from Liang Bua shows any interaction with modern humans, Tattersall still believes it is possible that these ancestral cousins could have crossed paths, perhaps with disastrous consequences.

 â€śThere is this pattern where ancient kinds of Homo that have been doing perfectly well for a very long time disappear as soon as Homo sapiens shows up. For one reason or another, Homo sapiens is an insuperable competitor,â€ť says Tattersall.

 And the new estimates for hobbit extinction coincide suspiciously with the arrival of modern humans in that area.

 View Images The "hobbit" (left) had a much smaller head than modern humans, as seen in this comparison image. Photograph by Ira Block, Nat Geo Image Collection

 â€śThe thing that I find most intriguing about the new work is its implications on how H. floresiensis went extinct,â€ť says Rick Potts, director of the Smithsonianâ€™s Human Origins Program and curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History. â€śIsland populations are always under threat due to fluctuations in food supply, and it could be that H. floresiensis went extinct on its own. But it also happens to coincide with the moment in time when Homo sapiens was in the neighborhood.â€ť

 Further excavations of Liang Bua and other sites on Flores could offer more clues and answer essential questions about the development, lifestyle, and extinction of this mysterious species. ||||| Homo sapiens skull (left) next to Homo floresiensis skull (right). Did our species kill off the Hobbits? Or did we interbreed and incorporate Hobbit human DNA in their genes? Scientists are still looking for the answers.

 Earlier confusion about when the Hobbits and associated animals died out at Flores had to do with the depth and complexity of the cave site's geological layers. Archaeological excavations at Liang Bua can reach depths of more than 8 meters (26 feet), as shown in this photo.

 Big climate shifts and volcano eruptions could have also doomed the hobbits. Here is a view of Liang Bua cave, as seen from the road out front. 'Hobbit Humans' Actually Might Not Have Been Human

 While our species is suspect, there are other possible explanations for the demise of Hobbit humans. One is the tiny elephant relative, pygmy Stegodon , might have been hunted to death, leading to a devastating chain reaction. Hobbit Human Teeth Reveal Surprising History

 The latest excavations at Liang Bua limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Flores show that the Hobbits, as well as many other animals, disappeared 38,000 years earlier than thought. Their disappearance coincides with the time that our species first arrived in the region. Photos: Faces of Our Ancestors

 Adult so-called Hobbits (Homo floresiensis) only stood about 3.5 feet tall. New research determined that these diminutive humans vanished from a cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia, around 50,000 years ago. What (or who) killed them off? Suspicious: Hobbits Vanish When Modern Humans Appear

 In this depiction, so-called hobbit humans inhabit the lush world of the Indonesian island of Flores.

 Hobbit humans, giant storks, pygmy elephants and Komodo dragons all suddenly disappeared from a cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia, around 50,000 years ago, new research finds.

 Did our species do them in?

 The new analysis dramatically pushes back the time of disappearance of the Hobbits and associated unique animals from the site.

 Photos: Excavation of a Hobbit Cave

 Play Video What Did Ancient Humans Really Eat? Recent dietary fads, such as going paleo, suggest we should get back to eating the way we did before agriculture came along. But, as in much else in life, there are no easy or perfect answers when it comes to the foods we choose.

 Before now, it was thought that these little archaic humans (Homo floresiensis) died out around 12,000 years ago, but new excavations at Liang Bua cave show that the Hobbits, as well as many other animals, disappeared 38,000 years earlier -- at about the exact same time our species first arrived in the wider region.

 The timing, say scientists, is suspicious.

 Bert Roberts of the University of Wollongong and co-author of the study, which appeared in Nature, told Discovery News: "The earliest known evidence of modern humans on Flores is from about 11,000 years ago and after, but we do know that modern humans were on other islands in the region around this time and had reached Australia by 50,000 years ago. So it is certainly a possibility to be considered, but solid evidence is needed in order to demonstrate it."

 Climate shifts and volcanoes might have also led to the sudden demise of species in and around Liang Bua, co-lead author Matt Tocheri of Lakehead University and the Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program added.

 Photos: Faces of Our Ancestors

 Another possibility is that the tiny elephant relative, pygmy Stegodon, might have been hunted to death, leading to a devastating chain reaction.

 "Pygmy Stegodon is the only large-bodied herbivore known on Flores during the Late Pleistocene, and it was clearly a primary food source for these other species," Tocheri explained. "If something happened to cause the pygmy Stegodon to crash, then it more than likely would have had an adverse effect on these other species."

 The confusion about when the Hobbits and associated animals died out at Flores had to do with the depth and complexity of the cave site's geological layers.

 The scientists discovered that an eroded surface sloped steeply toward the cave entrance. Much younger sediments covered it during the past 20,000 years. These newer sediments were at first attributed to the Hobbit remains, but the recent and more extensive analysis disproved that idea.

 Hobbit Human Teeth Reveal Surprising History

 The latest excavation, instead, found that the Hobbits' skeletal remains date from 100,000 to 60,000 years ago, but stone tools consisting of hammered flakes and cores that were made by the Hobbits continue until about 50,000 years ago.

 The earliest evidence of humans on Flores comes from an area called the Soa Basin, lead author Thomas Sutikna of the University of Wollongong and the National Research Center for Archaeology said. One million-year-old stone tools were found at Soa Basin and could have been made by the Hobbits or their ancestors.

 The Hobbit's origins are murky, but it is suspected that they either evolved from Homo erectus, or descended from another, unknown, species of human that might have left Africa 1 to 2 million years ago.

 Their skeletons, first reported in 2004, reveal that they had extremely small, chimpanzee-sized brains and that adults only stood about 3.5 feet tall. They resembled fossil human species that lived in Africa and Asia 1 to 3 million years ago. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– New research suggests it's possible ancient humans are responsible for killing off Indonesia's hobbits (an urge no doubt felt by modern humans who sat through the extended edition of The Hobbit). Starting in 2003 when their remains were first discovered on the island of Flores, scientists believed Homo floresiensis—who averaged 3.5 feet tall and 75 pounds—lived until as recently as 12,000 years ago, National Geographic reports. But a new study published this week in Nature found they actually died off sometime between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago—right around the time humans showed up in the area. "The exact cause of the demise of the hominids … is not yet understood, but in my view, may be related to the appearance in the area of the most aggressive of all hominin species, Homo sapiens, modern humans," one expert tells Discovery. Discovery calls the timing of the hobbits' disappearance "suspicious," but the study found no proof they were wiped out by humans, and further excavations on Flores are needed. Other possible causes for the extinction of Homo floresiensis include volcanoes, overhunting of pygmy elephants, and climate change. But it's not just their death that is mysterious. Scientists still don't know why these real-life hobbits were so small, how they got to Flores, or if they're even a different species. Some experts have posited they are actually humans suffering from dwarfism or Down syndrome. (Meanwhile, ancient humans having sex with Neanderthals may be why we have allergies.)


On August 3, 2012 Rights Equal Rights launched a global boycott of Amway / Alticor and

 all its divisions and family owned businesses because of its President and company owner

 Doug DeVos’s $500,000 contribution to the National Organization (NOM) for Marriage. This

 contribution recently came to light from the federal IRS 990 tax filing of the Doug and Maria

 DeVos Foundation.

 NOM is boycotting Starbucks and General Mills for simply supporting marriage equality in their

 home states, and is busily defending its staunch ally Chick-fil-A. We at Rights Equal Rights feel

 that it is important to support our friends and equally important to keep pressure on the mega-

 donors to NOM and other likeminded organizations and individuals who so vigorously oppose

 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) equality.

 A global boycott of Amway will let others know that there are consequences for giving massive

 amounts of money to take away the rights of a minority. We will be closely watching the

 donors who contribute to the anti-gay sides of the four upcoming November 6 th marriage

 elections in Minnesota, Maryland, Maine and Washington State.

 Visit our new site www.boycottamway.com for more information and tools you can use to help!

 Watch the Doug DeVos interview!

 News on the $500,000 DeVos Donation to NOM

 Think Progress- The Big Donors Who Fund NOM’s Educational Hate Speech

 http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/10/292447/the-big-donors-who-fund-noms-educational-hate-speech/

 Bilerico & LGBT POV Amway Gave $500k to NOM: http://www.bilerico.com/2012/02/romney_wants_marriage_amendment_amway_gave_500k_to_nom.php

 Outward Magazine – Amway President Continues to Contribute To Anti-Gay Causes

 http://www.outwordmagazine.com/index.php/inside-outword/glbt-news/765-amway-president-continues-to-contribute-to-anti-gay-causes-by-james-duggan

 Wikipedia – In January 2012, Amway contributed $500,000 to National Organization for Marriage, a political organization which opposes legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway ||||| Orlando Magic/Amway After hundreds of thousands of people ate "mor chikin" last week to support the Chick-fil-A CEO's traditional-marriage stance, another prominent company has found itself in the crosshairs of a boycott sparked by its executive's marriage beliefs. The Douglas and Maria DeVos Foundation, financially supported by Amway president Doug DeVos, donated $500,000 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an anti-gay marriage group that was one of the leading advocates against same-sex marriage initiatives in eight states. Because of that 2009 donation, gay rights activist are calling for a boycott of Ada, Mich.-based Amway, a health and beauty products company, and its affiliates including the Orlando Magic basketball team, which DeVos' father and Amway co-founder Richard DeVos owns. "NOM constantly defends anti-LGBT companies like its ally Chick-fil-A and its owner for hateful and bigoted comments and actions," gay rights activist and long-shot presidential candidate Fred Karger wrote in a statement announcing the boycott Friday. Karger, the president of the LGBT advocacy group Rights Equal Rights, said the goal of groups like the National Organization for Marriage "appears to be harming Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Americans." But Amway said the donation stemmed from DeVos' personal beliefs and the "Amway opportunity is open to everyone." "As private citizens, the DeVos family supports causes and organizations that advocate for policies aligned to their personal beliefs," Amway said in a statement. The company added that the DeVos family believes "one of the highest callings of any individual is to express their own personal beliefs as a participant in the democratic process." Amway president Doug DeVos has apparently made no public statements about the issue one way or another. A spokesman for the Orlando Magic said the team has seen no affect on ticket sales or support from the boycott. While companies like Amway and Chick-fil-A have been recently ensnared in controversy because of their executives' support for traditional marriage, they are not alone in taking sides in the gay-marriage debate. Here's a look at some of America's biggest businesses or corporate executives who've braved the inevitable storm and taken a public stance on same-sex marriage.

 Chick-fil-A Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy ignited a controversy in a radio interview last week when he publicly denounced gay marriage. "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." The restaurant has long-espoused Christian values, even going so far as to remain closed on Sundays. In response to the company's stance even before Cathy's comments, online cooking guru Hilah Johnson launched a "Chick-fil-Gay" sandwich recipe on her blog and YouTube "HilahCooking" channel. Johnson referred to the recipe as a way to get the taste of a Chick-fil-A sandwich with "less sugar, less salt, and less funding for anti-human-equality organizations." In a statement made after the CEO's remarks, Chick-fil-A reaffirmed its foundation on "biblically-based principles," but also said that "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect, regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender." Company officials said they plan to "leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena" in the future.

 Google During the first week of July, Google announced a new "Legalize Love" campaign to help promote safer working environments for gays and lesbians around the world. While originally understood by many as a campaign to support the legalization of gay marriage, Google has since clarified the goals of the project, saying that it is intended to create safer conditions for gays and lesbians "in countries with anti-gay laws on the books." Google leadership has long been pro-gay rights, and outspokenly so; its CEO, Sergey Brin, spoke out against California's Proposition 8 in 2008. Google began compensating employees in 2010 with same-sex partners to help cover taxes on domestic partner health benefits.

 facebook.com/oreo Kraft Foods The packaged foods giant posted this photo of a rainbow Oreo on its Facebook page in June in support of gay-pride month. An outpouring of responses quickly flooded the company's page, and consumers' posts ranged from the supportive to the damning. "Disgusted with oreos," one commenter wrote. "Being gay is an abmonitation [sic] in God's eyes i wont be buying them anymore." Kraft did not actually sell the rainbow-stuffed Oreo, and said the digitally altered image was created simply for online posting as part of the company's support for gay pride month. Nonetheless, some consumers said they would boycott the company - a statement that led supporters of gay marriage to strike back, listing the myriad of foods -- everything from Capri Sun juice to Velveeta to Triscuits -- that boycotters of the food giant would have to swear off in order to make good on that claim.

 Courtesy Ben & Jerrys Ben & Jerry's Ben & Jerry's has been publicly supportive of gay marriage since 2009, when it renamed its "Chubby Hubby" flavor to "Hubby Hubby" to celebrate the passage of Vermont legislature allowing gay marriage. More recently, the Vermont ice cream merchant renamed its apple pie ice cream "Apple-y Ever After" as part of a push to legalize gay marriage in the United Kingdom. Ben & Jerry's encourages customers to get involved in advocacy efforts on its website and through Facebook apps.

 General Mills Minneapolis-based General Mills recently stepped straight into a contentious battle surrounding an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would ban gay marriage. General Mills, which is headquartered in Minnesota, announced in June that it was against the amendment. While the firm had long been considered an ally of the gay and lesbian community, its public announcement was unexpected. Protestors and supporters came out of the woodwork after General Mills made its position clear. Protestors gathered outside the company's headquarters soon after the announcement, but the firm stayed cordial, offering the activists coffee, water and even cookies (the last of which the protestors turned down). |||||

Write a summary.

– The gay rights battle is now running the retail gamut. Following the uproar over Chick-fil-A and same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates are pushing for a boycott of cleaning and beauty products company Amway and its affiliates, which include the Orlando Magic basketball team. The boycott call is in response to a $500,000 donation to battle gay marriage made by a foundation funded by Amway president Doug DeVos. The recipient of the donation, the National Organization for Marriage, "has been one of the most virulently anti-LGBT organizations in the country," says a statement launching the boycott by Rights Equal Rights. "A global boycott of Amway will let others know that there are consequences for giving massive amounts of money to take away the rights of a minority." Amway officials said the donation represents the personal beliefs of DeVos. As "private citizens, the DeVos family supports causes and organizations that advocate for policies aligned to their personal beliefs," Amway said in a statement to ABC News, adding that the family believes "one of the highest callings of any individual is to express their own personal beliefs as a participant in the democratic process." The Magic has reported no dip in ticket sales.


It’s been so many years since Debra Long has seen or talked to her son that she’s not sure she would recognize him.

 Long keeps an old photo album with fading family pictures. There’s one of Matt at 9. There’s another taken shortly after his wedding.

 In her Centre County home is a framed picture of Matt from his prom. He’s posed and smiling in front of a draped backdrop in a bow tie, leaning into his high school girlfriend.

 That relationship ended ugly, Long remembers. When they broke up in 2002, Matt was charged with harassing the woman and her new boyfriend, and later pleaded guilty.

 It came as no surprise to Long.

 “That’s how Jerry taught him to act,” she said.

 Matt Sandusky is not part of the legal case against the former Penn State football coach and his adoptive father, Jerry Sandusky. But in many ways, Matt’s story has become intertwined in the saga.

 It’s a complicated story.

 Matt lived with the Sanduskys through many of the years that abuse is alleged to have happened under the roof of their modest two-story home.

 Within several hundred pages of evidence collected by investigators during a grand jury probe of Jerry Sandusky are several police reports about the 68-year-old’s youngest adopted son.

 Well before Sandusky was accused of being a child molester, Matt’s biological mother was the lone voice of concern when Sandusky took her son into foster care in 1996. Notes to her attorney show she challenged the court, made accusations of stalkinglike behavior against Sandusky and suspected abuse.

 And so Long became one of the first people investigators thought to interview after a teenage boy from Clinton County made allegations in 2009 that were the onset of a case that would lead to Jerry Sandusky’s arrest and end the career of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. Even the circumstances around his move into the Sandusky home have their own backstory.

 Jerry Sandusky was in Los Angeles preparing for the 1995 Rose Bowl game when he made calls back to Centre County and arranged for Matt to move to Sandusky’s house directly from juvenile detention, where Matt was being held after his arrest for setting fire to a barn.

 Family and friends have said the relationship between Matt and Jerry Sandusky was controlling and rocky.

 Matt’s biological brother, Ron Heichel, remembers being a teenager in the 1990s and trying to reach Matt at the Sandusky home.

 Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, answered the phone.

 “And she said, ‘He’s not your brother anymore.’ This was before he was even adopted,” he said.

 A source close to Jill Thomas, Matt’s ex-wife and the mother of his three children, told The Patriot-News that Jill agreed to be interviewed by police as part of the Sandusky investigation.

 According to the source, she said Matt was estranged from Sandusky for a long time, and only talked to him a few times during their marriage.

 When Jerry Sandusky would call Matt, she told police, Matt would keep the conversations private. But every time he hung up the phone he would go to the bathroom and throw up.

 When contacted, Jill Thomas confirmed that she has been a part of this case and was even supposed to be a witness at a pre-trial hearing for Jerry Sandusky. She never took the stand. Instead, prosecutors summarized her concerns about Sandusky.

 After the hearing she told The Patriot-News that the statement the prosecutors gave the judge did not express all of her concerns, and she wasn’t consulted before it was written.

 Saved documents

 Last spring, as the grand jury investigation was wrapping up nearly three years of testimony, Long was subpoenaed to testify about the relationship between Jerry Sandusky and her son.

 She told grand jurors she witnessed stalking behavior and suspected something was wrong based on a drastic change in her son’s attitude.

 On a hunch, she says she asked Matt if Sandusky had touched him, and she said he simply answered, “I don’t want to talk about it.”

 When contacted by phone, Matt said, “I have nothing to say. I have no comment about anything.” His attorney did not return messages. Jerry Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, says he’s not worried about Matt’s testimony before the grand jury.

 Amendola said that Long has been bitter toward Sandusky since Matt’s adoption and said that Matt’s own testimony would discredit her.

 But Long saved the documents and her notes from court appearances in the 1990s, including a letter from a school-based probation officer, which suggests that Sandusky’s home wasn’t a good fit for Matt. She stands by her claims that Sandusky stole her son.

 A continuing theme in her notes: Sandusky is causing Matt to alienate himself from his biological family.

 Since Sandusky has been charged, her story has received national attention, and Long says the FBI has received the paperwork she kept from her court battle. The FBI is conducting an investigation parallel to the state’s, and it appears to be more focused on a possible cover-up.

 Highs and lows

 Within several hundred pages of evidence collected by investigators during a grand jury probe of Jerry Sandusky are dozens of reports on Matt.

 Now 33, Matt once was Matt Heichel. He came from a poor, single-parent household in Centre County — a small home he shared with his mom, sister and brother. The children witnessed their mom in an abusive relationship, something later documented in a court case that would determine the fate of Matt’s brother.

 So, maybe it made sense for Matt to go live with the former defensive coordinator and his wife, Dottie, as a foster child just days after he set fire to the barn.

 Long’s parental rights were never terminated. It wasn’t until Matt turned 18 and became a legal adult that he was formally adopted by Jerry and Dottie.

 But the relationship had some steep highs and lows.

 Police records — mentioned and requested from prosecutors in a motion filed by Amendola — show that a teenage Matt ran away in 1996. In 1994 the police were called to Sandusky’s home to investigate a theft of cash and clothing that Matt had been accused of stealing.

 About four months after moving to the Sandusky home, Matt attempted suicide with a girl living at the Sandusky home.

 In 2003, after Matt married and moved out of the Sandusky home, the father-son relationship had become strained.

 On May 3, 2003, State College police were called to Matt’s home for a trespassing complaint, according to a police source. Jerry Sandusky had been told he wasn’t welcome there, but had come over anyway, the source said. Jerry Sandusky told an officer he was trying to get back a carpet cleaner, and after he was given the appliance, he left, according to the source.

 As soon as Sandusky was arrested in November, Thomas asked the court to bar Matt from taking her children to visit their grandfather. She later issued a statement saying her son was seeing a therapist because after her children told her Sandusky had “inappropriately touched” her young son.

 The therapist “could not rule out that Jerry Sandusky was grooming my son for sexual abuse,” she wrote, and said she opposed any visitation allowed by the court.

 ‘Abandonment issues’

 Matt had joined The Second Mile around age 7, along with his younger brother, Ron Heichel, a bigger and more rambunctious kid than shy and reserved Matt.

 One year and one week apart in age, the brothers were inseparable, Ron Heichel said.

 “We did everything together. Brother things,” he said.

 And that included plenty of trouble.

 The day of the barn fire, Ron Heichel was suspended from school and went deer hunting. Otherwise, he’d have been right alongside his brother, he said.

 When Matt was caught, he was sent to juvenile detention and never returned home. It was devastating to the family, Ron Heichel remembers.

 “It was a very trying time — losing your best friend in the world,” he said. “One day he’s here and one day he’s not. That’s one of my biggest issues in life, is abandonment issues. That is definitely a key moment in my life.”

 Ron says he tried to stay connected to his brother, but never felt welcome in the Sandusky home.

 He’d always felt that Jerry Sandusky favored Matt over him, and he remembers feeling incredibly jealous and hurt when Sandusky befriended his brother but seemed to want nothing to do with him.

 “Looking back on it now, I’d say I was more troubled than Matt was, but Jerry didn’t see it that way,” he said.

 Different paths

 There is no doubt their lives would take drastically different paths.

 After some time, Matt’s grades began to rise, and he ended up attending Penn State, although he never graduated.

 He recently married for the second time and has three children. He has reunited with Sandusky and has a good relationship with Dottie.

 Ron Heichel calls the State Correctional Facility at Mahanoy his home. He was convicted last March of first-degree murder and is serving a life term, even though he maintains his innocence in the 2009 shooting death of a Centre Hall father of four and is appealing his conviction.

 In a strange way, the two cases collided.

 Early in the Centre Hall murder investigation, one trooper recognized Long from nearly 15 years ago as Matt’s mom. That trooper was now assigned to Sandusky’s investigation as well and wanted to talk about Matt.

 That’s how Matt and Long ended up getting a subpoena to testify before the grand jury.

 Then, when Ron Heichel’s murder case went to trial, there was another intersection. The judge assigned to the case was the same woman who had been the guardian for Matt when Matt was in foster care with the Sanduskys. By then she had been elected judge.

 Legal flexibility

 The Patriot-News asked two attorneys familiar with child protective services law to look at the documents Long kept about Matt’s foster care placement.

 There are no glaring deviations from standard practices in the 1990s. But there are things that, in hindsight, catch attention.

 • Long had already been approved to be a foster parent for a nephew who was taken from his home, and after Matt left, she took care of three more. Why was she fit to take care of someone else’s child but not her own?

 • In a letter from school-based probation officer, Terry Trude expressed concerns about Matt’s placement with the Sandusky’s, even though he acknowledged that Matt should remain in foster care.

 • And a letter in response to concerns made by Long indicates that not all procedures were followed in Matt’s case.

 But the child welfare system is complicated. Creativity for the benefit of a child is encouraged. The criminal adult system is much more black and white. In juvenile court, there is a lot more flexibility.

 And documents are sealed.

 A spokesman for the Department of Public Welfare said there has been no internal investigation opened related to Sandusky since the scandal broke, and everyone began scrutinizing each minute of Sandusky’s life.

 But before the allegations, Sandusky was a well trusted and respected member of the community, hailed as a guardian of children. His charity, The Second Mile, was a statewide and nationally recognized haven for troubled youths and had a relationship with the county Children and Youth Services for foster care placement.

 “This is not Joe who lives on Maple Avenue. This is — at a time when community based juvy placements are just getting off the ground — an organization that stands out because it is attached to Penn State and the notable Sandusky,” said Frank Cervone, a Philadelphia lawyer and executive director of Support Center for Child Advocates.

 “That’s the narrative of these 15 years of Sandusky,” Cervone said, referring to the grand jury presentment that identifies 10 alleged victims abused over a decade and a half.

 “Is this an example of the clouded judgment created by the Penn State/Sandusky mentality? I imagine it probably is, but again, I’m not reading this whole picture.”

 That’s why it’s hard to say if there’s anything different about Matt’s foster care placement.

 The fact that Long was able to care for other children, “it could be entirely odd,” Cervone said. “It could be entirely normal. We don’t know what Matt’s issues were. ... He wasn’t removed from her care because of any behaviors or limitations of hers. He may have been placed because the court wanted him placed. It was almost 20 years ago, a very different world. I’m betting the kid’s acting out and not going to school and the court looks at it and says, ‘We’re going to put you someplace where we know you’re going to go to school.’ ”

 But Jason Kutulakis, a midstate attorney who has worked with Children and Youth Services for several years, called it “creepy” and “weird” that Sandusky would make a phone call — as he describes in his book — and essentially say, ‘Hey, I want to take that kid home.’

 “I can tell you, from my perspective, he has no tools to counsel a delinquent kid who allegedly committed an arson,” Kutulakis said. “That’s a crime where they start bringing in experts right away.”

 Juveniles who commit arson are typically sent to inpatient care for intensive psychological evaluations and not to private homes, according to Kutulakis and Cervone.

 “But keep in mind who you are dealing with,” Kutulakis said. “One of the most prolific defensive coordinators in the country. If he had made one of those calls before, that might not have seemed unusual.”

 What doesn’t make sense, he said, is that because Sandusky had no formal psychological training, he had the same skill set as Matt’s biological mom.

 So why couldn’t he just go home?

 “Presumably, she could afford and provide the same type of care he was providing, and that’s what bizarre,” he said. “It seems to me Matt should have gone into licensed care.”

 About a year after Matt’s case began, then-Gov. Tom Ridge overhauled child protective service laws. Before that happened, kids were placed more often on their own conduct, not their parents’ conduct.

 That might explain why Matt was removed from his mom’s home and sent to another family, Kutulakis said.

 Another possibility: No one else wanted him.

 “He’s a fire setter,” Cervone said. “Fire setters are radioactive in child placements. They were probably going to have a degree of difficulty placing him. I’m assuming that Second Mile had a relationship with the probation department, so this is the natural pathway, and Sandusky and his wife are among the placement resources.”

 Sandusky writes in his book, “Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story,” that after Matt attempted suicide, “It got to the point where the authorities were going to take him away from us, but fortunately two people stepped in and, in our eyes, saved that young man’s life.”

 One was a psychologist, who wrote a letter that Long saved, telling the judge that Matt should go back into the Sandusky home. (Matt wrote a similar letter to the judge asking to return.)

 The second person, Sandusky wrote, was Judge David E. Grine, now retired and a senior judge in Centre County. Grine said he could not comment on the case.

 “When you get a psychologist weighing in like that, and it’s between the psychologist and the mom, who are you going to believe?” Cervone said. “I thought it was pretty compelling ... and, the boy’s desire to go back there.”

 But not everyone was in agreement. A school-based probation officer, Terry Trude, wrote a letter voicing concern about Matt’s safety, days after the 1996 suicide attempt, saying he did not believe the Sandusky home was the appropriate place for Matt.

 “That was a pretty strong letter, and I would be shocked if there weren’t safeguards put into place to address those issues. ... All those are red flags, but we don’t know what evidence was presented in court,” Kutulakis said. “We don’t know what was actually presented to the judge. The problem is there’s a vacuum, due to time and lack of records, to know exactly what took place.”

 Finally, the probation department admitted that protocol wasn’t followed in that a long-term plan for family placement was never established.

 Unfortunately, Cervone said, that wasn’t unusual in the 1990s.

 A focal point

 It’s not clear if any of this backstory will ever play a role in the criminal case against Sandusky.

 Clearly, Matt was a focal point for investigators. But unless he takes the stand — likely in a defense role — we won’t know what he told the grand jury about the relationship or how he feels about Sandusky’s role in his life.

 Long says she can’t explain why her son won’t talk with her.

 Eventually, Ron Heichel and Matt also grew apart, though they never completely stopped talking. And Matt still confided in his brother.

 Ron Heichel remembers one conversation vividly. They were still teenagers; Heichel thinks he was 13 or 14.

 “He asked one time, ‘Have you ever thought about having sex with another man?’ I said, ‘No, why would that even come up?’ ”

 The questions got more graphic.

 Ron Heichel says he was disgusted.

 Years later, he approached the subject again.

 “I asked him, since all this came out, and I suspected something back then because he would ask weird questions. He said, ‘No, don’t be ridiculous.’ ... He’s forgetting that I was his brother for all of these years, I know when he’s being sincere.”

 Story so far

 Former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, 68, is facing more than 50 counts of child sex abuse against 10 boys, most of whom he met through his children’s charity, The Second Mile.

 Sandusky was first charged Nov. 4, then arrested a second time in December after a three-year investigation by a statewide grand jury.

 Almost immediately, the scandal engulfed Penn State.

 Two top former officials, Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley, were charged with perjury and failing to report an incident brought to them in 2002 by graduate assistant Mike McQueary.

 Schultz and Curley stepped down hours after the charges were filed, and university President Graham Spanier and football coach Joe Paterno were fired days later by the board of trustees.

 Paterno, who was diagnosed with lung cancer days after his firing, died Jan. 22 from complications of his treatment.

 More than 85 people, some angry with the decision by the board of trustees to fire the 85-year-old coach, are running for one of three seats opening on the board of trustees, and angry alumni are calling for a wholesale change in how the board is comprised.

 While the state grand jury continues to meet, federal investigators are also at work, and they appear to be focusing on areas the state’s case hasn’t gone: Penn State and The Second Mile.

 Gov. Tom Corbett, who as the state’s attorney general started the investigation into Sandusky, has defended the length of the investigation and rejected claims that it was stalled for political reasons. He has also defended accepting campaign money from board members at Penn State and The Second Mile.

 Penn State and The Second Mile are also conducting internal reviews, the NCAA opened an inquiry and the U.S. Department of Education is investigating compliance with the Clery Act, the federal law mandating that universities report crimes.

  ||||| BELLEFONTE -- Matt Sandusky, through his attorney Andrew Shubin, said that he met with prosecutors this week to say for the first time that he is a molestation victim of Jerry Sandusky, his adopted father.

 Matt, 33, was adopted by Jerry and Dottie Sandusky as an adult, after going to live with the family as a foster child. He has denied ever being abused by his adopted father until now. "This has been an extremely painful experience for Matt and he has asked us to convey his request that the media respect his privacy. There will be no further comment," Shubin said in a statement.

 Shubin also said Matt was prepared to testify truthfully at trial, if called by prosecutors. It is unclear why he did not testify.

 In March, The Patriot-News reported that Matt had a rocky relationship with his adopted father. His biological mother told The Patriot-News she believed Sandusky had stolen her son from her.

 His biological mom, Debra Long, testified before the grand jury in early 2011 about strange behavior she says she witnessed between her son and Sandusky.

 Matt testified, too. But Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola said at the time that he was not worried about Matt's testimony, and that Long was making false allegations because she was angry at the Sandusky family.

 During testimony at trial, Victim 4 told jurors that one time Jerry Sandusky began touching him during a shower, Matt Sandusky was present, but left the shower when the assault began. |||||

Write a summary.

– Jerry Sandusky has a new accuser: His adopted son. Matt Sandusky told prosecutors this week that Jerry molested him, his attorney says. It's the first time Matt has made such allegations, though his biological mother testified before a grand jury last year regarding an unsettling relationship between her son and the former coach. Matt had been willing to testify in the current trial, the attorney says, and it's not known why he didn't, the Patriot-News reports. Matt lived as a foster child with Jerry and Dottie Sandusky, who adopted him when he reached adulthood. As far back as 1996, when the Sandusky family took Matt in, his biological mother, Debra Long, raised concerns that the former coach was stalking her son. A March profile of Long in the Patriot-News cites a "rocky" relationship between Matt and Jerry; the two were estranged for an extended period, says one source. When Long asked her son if Jerry had touched him, he replied, "I don't want to talk about it," she says.


Here is a news article: The news comes just a month-and-a-half after the 33-year-old Holmes shocked the world by filing for divorce from her 50-year-old Top Gun hubby and seeking sole custody of their six-year-old daughter, Suri. The twosome formerly known as TomKat entered negotiations almost immediately and worked out a settlement in a matter of days, the details of which remained confidential.

 A source close to Cruise tells E! News today that the actor is please that he is moving on from the divorce.

 "Tom is very happy and relieved that he is moving forward," says the source, who's familiar with the terms of the deal. "His priority is being a good father and this settlement will make sure that continues."

 Cruise and Holmes began dating in April 2005 and a month later the Mission: Impossible star proclaimed his love for the actress with his infamous Oprah Winfrey couch-jumping appearance. The pair tied the knot in Nov. 2006 in a lavish ceremony in Italy.

 —Reporting by Claudia Rosenbaum and Ken Baker

  ||||| Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise's divorce deal signed and sealed TomKat is history, but any juicy details in court papers are kept under wraps

 Tom Cruise swept Katie Holmes off her feet once, but red carpet romance and six-year marriage ended in a flash in June.

 IT’S OFFICIAL: TomKat is kaput.

 Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes’ divorce case was closed Monday, bringing to a swift end the breakup of one of Hollywood’s most high-profile couples.

 PHOTOS: A LOOK BACK AT TOMKAT'S ROMANCE

 But fans eager for juicy details are out of luck.

 A day after Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper signed off on the judgment, the papers were “sealed and impounded,” records show.

 Lawyers and reps for the mega stars did not return messages seeking comment.

 “Tom is very happy and relieved that he is moving forward,” a source close to Cruise told E! News. “His priority is being a good father, and this settlement will make sure that continues.”

 The 33-year-old Holmes blindsided Cruise, 50, with divorce papers on June 28.

 The couple reached a lightning-fast settlement two weeks later, awarding Holmes primary physical custody of their 6-year-old daughter Suri.

 The deal included restrictions on Suri’s exposure to the controversial Church of Scientology, which lists Cruise as one of its best-known followers.

 Cruise and Holmes wed at an Italian castle nearly six years ago after a whirlwind romance that included Cruise infamously jumping on Oprah Winfrey’s couch to proclaim his love.

 rschapiro@nydailynews.com |||||
A summary of this is?

– Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes have become official residents of Splitsville. A New York judge has signed off on the couple's divorce, and the papers ending their five-year marriage have been sealed, meaning any juicy details won't be reaching the public, reports the New York Daily News. "Tom is very happy and relieved that he is moving forward," a source close to the actor tells E! News. "His priority is being a good father, and this settlement will make sure that continues." The deal, reached soon after Holmes left Cruise in June, is believed to include restrictions on their daughter Suri's exposure to Scientology.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Despite US pleas to rethink proposed legislation regulating Holocaust speech, Poland's Senate went ahead and passed the bill, reports the BBC. The legislation has sparked a diplomatic dispute with Israel, and the US had argued that it could hurt freedom of speech as well as strategic relationships. US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert voiced her government's concerns as the Polish Senate was preparing to approve the bill Wednesday; the bill later passed by 57 votes to 23. The measure next needs to be signed into law by the president, who supports it. Poland's conservative ruling Law and Justice party authored the bill, which calls for up to three years in prison for any intentional attempt to falsely attribute the crimes of Nazi Germany to the Polish state or people, the AP reports. Law and Justice says it is fighting against the use of phrases like "Polish death camps" to refer to death camps operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II. Israel, however, sees the move as an attempt to whitewash the role some Poles played in the killing of Jews during World War II. Nauert said the US understands that phrases like "Polish death camps" are "inaccurate, misleading, and hurtful," but voiced concern the legislation could "undermine free speech and academic discourse." Members of Poland's Jewish community also weighed in Wednesday, saying in an open letter that they strongly oppose usage of the phrase "Polish death camps," but also oppose the law.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Poland has long objected to phrases which suggest shared responsibility for Nazi Germany's actions

 Poland's Senate has approved a controversial bill making it illegal to accuse the Polish nation or state of complicity in the Nazi Holocaust.

 The bill, which sets fines or a maximum three-year jail term as punishment, must be signed off by the president before becoming law.

 President Andrzej Duda says Poland has the right "to defend historical truth".

 But it has outraged Israeli MPs, who are now seeking to strengthen their own Holocaust denial laws.

 What does the bill state?

 It says that "whoever accuses, publicly and against the facts, the Polish nation, or the Polish state, of being responsible or complicit in the Nazi crimes committed by the Third German Reich … shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of imprisonment of up to three years".

 But it adds the caveat that a person "is not committing a crime if he or she commits such an act as part of artistic or scientific activities".

 It passed in a late-night sitting of the upper house of the Polish parliament with 57 votes to 23, with two abstaining.

 The country has long objected to the use of phrases like "Polish death camps", which suggest the Polish state in some way shared responsibility for camps such as Auschwitz. The camps were built and operated by Nazi Germany after it invaded Poland in 1939.

 But the more contentious point raised by the bill is whether it will outlaw references to acts of individual complicity by Poles with the Nazis - something historians say there is clear evidence for.

 What has been the Israeli reaction?

 The Israelis are furious about the bill, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described as an attempt to rewrite history and deny the Holocaust.

 There was particular anger as it came just a few days after the Polish president promised to engage in dialogue with Israel about the bill amid the outcry.

 Deputies from across Israel's often fractious political spectrum have united to denounce it.

 Opposition MP Tzipi Livni of the Zionist Union party - normally a staunch critic of Mr Netanyahu - said: "They have spat in Israel's face twice, firstly as the state of the Jewish people that is trying to prevent a second Holocaust, and secondly in the face of an Israeli prime minister who had reached an agreement with his Polish counterpart, and had it ignored."

 Centrist MP Yair Lapin was also defiant, tweeting that the law could not change history.

 Following the passage of the law, Israel's Foreign Ministry asked to postpone the visit of a senior Polish official.

 Pavel Solosh, the head of the Polish National Security Council, will not arrive in Israel on Sunday as was planned.

 Now, Israeli MPs are backing a bill that would expand Israel's existing Holocaust denial laws to include a five-year jail sentence for anyone denying or minimising the role of Nazi collaborators, including Poles, in crimes committed in the Holocaust.

 The amended law would also give legal aid to any Holocaust survivor telling their story who is prosecuted in a foreign country.

 The US state department had also urged the Polish government to rethink the bill.

 What about in Poland?

 Polish politicians have expressed bafflement at the Israeli response.

 "We are very sad and surprised our fight for the truth, for the dignity of Poles, is perceived and interpreted in this way," said Senate speaker Stanislaw Karczewski.

 Deputy Justice Minister Marcin Warchol said it was wrong to suggest the bill would stop people researching Polish history.

 "Poland is a democratic state of law which respects the freedom of public debate, scientific research, and the right to criticism," he said.

 Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Poland was committed to combating lies about the Holocaust.

 "The camps where millions of Jews were murdered were not Polish. This truth needs to be protected," he said.

 Poland is governed by a nationalist party, Law and Justice (PiS), which is keen to show the world how Poland was ruthlessly victimised by its German and Soviet neighbours in the war.

 Media reaction to the law has been much more ambivalent. "Instead of settling the crisis, we have made it even worse," said a columnist in the conservative daily Rzeczpospolita.

 About 100 Polish artists, politicians and journalists have signed an open letter calling for the repeal of the bill, saying it goes too far in trying to make Poland "the only blameless nation in Europe".

 Analysis: It's not a black and white issue

 by Adam Easton, Warsaw correspondent

 "Polish death camps" is a depressingly frequent term in the international media, often as a kind of journalistic shorthand. Even President Obama used it in 2012 during a speech honouring a Polish war hero, Jan Karski. Many Poles believe that the user thinks that Poles created and ran the camps. Of course that's not true.

 Poland's right-wing government, while acknowledging that some Poles blackmailed Jews in hiding to enrich themselves, is keen to promote the history of Poland as a victim, of not just the Nazis, but also the Soviets.

 The government is rightly proud that more Poles are honoured in Israel for saving Jews during the war than citizens of any other nation in occupied Europe. But Polish-Jewish relations during the war were complex - they were neither black nor white.

 Historians say individual Poles denounced their Jewish neighbours to the Germans and also took part in their murder. Critics say this bill may act as a muzzle on people trying to uncover the full complexity of the Holocaust.

 What happened in World War Two?

 Poland was attacked and occupied by Nazi Germany. Millions of its citizens were killed, including three million Polish Jews in the Holocaust.

 Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust overall.

 Image copyright AFP Image caption Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he strongly opposed the bill

 More Poles have been honoured by Israel for saving the lives of Jews during the war than any other nation.

 However, historians say others were complicit by acts such as informing on Jews in hiding for rewards, and participating in Nazi-instigated massacres including in Jedwabne where hundreds of Jews were murdered by their neighbours.

 A historian and well-known "Nazi-hunter" at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Efraim Zuroff, says the number of collaborators runs into "many thousands".

 "The Polish state was not complicit in the Holocaust, but many Poles were," Mr Zuroff told the Times of Israel. ||||| Israeli Ambassador to Poland, Anna Azari, standing left, speaks during a eremony markjng the 13th International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the victims of the Holocaust, at the Monument to the Heroes... (Associated Press)

 Israeli Ambassador to Poland, Anna Azari, standing left, speaks during a eremony markjng the 13th International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the victims of the Holocaust, at the Monument to the Heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto in Warsaw, Poland, Monday, Jan. 29, 2018. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski) (Associated Press)

 WARSAW, Poland (AP) — The United States asked Poland to rethink plans to enact proposed legislation regulating Holocaust speech that has sparked a diplomatic dispute with Israel, arguing Wednesday that if it passes it could hurt freedom of speech as well as strategic relationships.

 U.S. State Department spokeswoman Neather Nauert voiced her government's concerns as the Polish Senate was preparing to approve the bill, a step that would put it closer to becoming law. The measure would next need to be signed into law by the president, who supports it.

 Poland's conservative ruling Law and Justice party authored the bill, which calls for up to three years in prison for any intentional attempt to falsely attribute the crimes of Nazi Germany to the Polish state or people.

 Law and Justice says it is fighting against the use of phrases like "Polish death camps" to refer to death camps operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II.

 Israel, however, sees the move as an attempt to whitewash the role some Poles played in the killing of Jews during World War II.

 Nauert said the U.S. understands that phrases like "Polish death camps" are "inaccurate, misleading, and hurtful" but voiced concern the legislation could "undermine free speech and academic discourse."

 "We are also concerned about the repercussions this draft legislation, if enacted, could have on Poland's strategic interests and relationships — including with the United States and Israel. The resulting divisions that may arise among our allies benefit only our rivals," Nauert said.

 "We encourage Poland to reevaluate the legislation in light of its potential impact on the principle of free speech and on our ability to be effective partners."

 Nauert's statement came only days after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Warsaw, where he paid respects to Jewish and Polish victims of the war on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

 Earlier Wednesday, a U.S. congressional task force on combatting anti-Semitism said it was "alarmed" by the legislation and called on Polish President Andrzej Duda to veto it.

 "We are deeply concerned that this legislation could have a chilling effect on dialogue, scholarship, and accountability in Poland about the Holocaust, should this legislation become law," the bipartisan group said.

 The Poland-Israel dispute, which erupted over the weekend, has elicited bitter recriminations on both sides. Some Israelis have accused the mostly Catholic Poles of being driven by anti-Semitism and of trying to deny the Holocaust. Poles believe they are being defamed by being linked to German crimes of which they were one of the largest group of victims.

 The lower house of the Polish parliament approved the bill Friday, a day before International Holocaust Remembrance Day, timing also criticized as insensitive.

 Members of Poland's Jewish community weighed in Wednesday, saying in an open letter that they strongly oppose usage of the phrase "Polish death camps," but also oppose the law.

 "As eyewitnesses as well as descendants of the Jewish men and women murdered in the Holocaust, we object to this mendacious expression," they wrote. "What we cannot, however, agree to are provisions which impose prison sentences for the use of an expression."

 ___

 Associated Press writers Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Randy Herschaft in New York and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report. |||||


Here is a news article: A group of recently deported immigrants stand near the double steel fence that separates San Diego and Tijuana at the border in Tijuana December 10, 2011.

 WASHINGTONMore than half of U.S. citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the U.S. immigration system.

 The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007.

 Thirty percent of those polled think that most illegal immigrants, with some exceptions, should be deported, while 23 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.

 Only 5 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, and 31 percent want most illegal immigrants to stay.

 These results are in line with other polls in recent years, suggesting that people's views on immigration have not changed dramatically since the immigration debate reignited in Congress last month, according to Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

 "It's not Americans' views that are shifting. It is that the political climate is ripe for this discussion," after the November election when Hispanics voted overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic President Barack Obama, she said.

 "Democrats feel that the time is right to capitalize on their wins and Republicans feel that they had a bad blow and are eager to reach out to Hispanics," she added.

 Polls show that most Americans back immigration reform, although they often have different ideas of what that means, with some people favoring looser immigration laws while others want to see greater border security.

 A group of eight U.S. senators are working on a bipartisan deal to enact immigration reform, the first major attempt since a similar overhaul died in Congress six years ago.

 The senators' proposal calls for a full path to citizenship for illegal immigrants once they pay back taxes and a fine and wait in line behind others applying to become Americans.

 A plan by Obama has similar provisions, but the senators want any move to relax immigration laws dependant on boosting security on the southern border.

 ISSUE POLARIZES POLICYMAKERS

 Attitudes toward immigration are polarized by party, according to another the Reuters/Ipsos poll. Seventy-five percent of Republicans think all or most immigrants should be deported, compared to 40 percent of Democrats who think the same.

 Republican Senator John McCain, one of the eight senators in the group, had his own encounter with citizens angered by illegal immigration on Tuesday when residents of his state of Arizona complained bitterly at a town hall meeting about the lack of security on the border with Mexico.

 One man asked why troops had not been deployed to the border.

 "Why didn't the army go down there and stop them? Because the only thing that stops them I'm afraid to say, and it's too damn bad, is a gun," the man said,

 Another resident, Keith Smith, got into a testy exchange with McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate whose views on immigration have fluctuated over the years.

 "Cut off their welfare and all their stuff and they'll go back," Smith said, referring to undocumented workers.

 McCain had been trying to explain his position: "You're not telling these people the truth. They mow our lawns, they care for our babies, they clean . . . that's what those people do," he said.

 The Arizona lawmaker, whose position on immigration hardened during the 2010 midterm elections before softening again, is a key part of the Republican side of the senators' bipartisan immigration effort.

 Wednesday's Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted Friday through Tuesday and surveyed 1,443 Americans over the age of 18.

 The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online poll is measured using a credibility interval. In this survey, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

 (Reporting by Rachelle Younglai in Washington and Tim Gaynor in Phoenix, Editing by Alistair Bell and Philip Barbara) ||||| Bloomberg News A worker harvests bok choy at a California farm earlier this month.

 Key senators are exploring an immigration bill that would force every U.S. worker—citizen or not—to carry a high-tech identity card that could use fingerprints or other personal markers to prove a person's legal eligibility to work.

 Key senators are exploring an immigration bill that would force every U.S. worker-citizen or not-to carry a high-tech ID card that could use fingerprints or other personal markers to prove legal eligibility to work. Danny Yadron reports. Photo: Getty.

 The idea, signaled only in vaguely worded language from senators crafting a bipartisan immigration bill, has privacy advocates and others concerned that the law would create a national identity card that, in time, could track Americans at airports, hospitals and through other facets of their lives.

 Vote

 The lawmakers haven't committed to the "biometric" ID card, and are wary of any element that might split the fragile coalition of Democrats, Republicans and outside organizations working toward agreement on a broad overhaul of immigration laws.

 But at least five of the eight senators writing the bill have backed biometric ID cards in the past. At least three of them—Sens. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.)—have said they support requiring the cards under the new law but are open to other options, aides say.

 The goal is to ensure that employers can learn the legal status of all new hires quickly, part of the effort to dissuade illegal immigrants from entering the country or seeking jobs. A system now in place, called E-Verify, matches prospective hires to a database of Social Security numbers and other data, but it can be foiled at times when illegal immigrants give stolen names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers.

 The Senate group, in a statement guiding their work on a new law, called for workers to prove their legal status and identities through "non-forgeable electronic means." Senate aides said the language was intentionally broad because of the sensitivity of the issue. It leaves open several possibilities for how new hires would be required to prove they can legally work.

 Mr. Graham, in an interview, said that in his mind the language refers to a requirement for biometric ID cards. "This is the public's way of contributing to solving the problem" of illegal immigration, Mr. Graham said.

 A second senator working on the bill, Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), said in an interview he is open to the idea of biometric ID cards but that the issue remained unsettled. "You've got to give employers the tools" to screen new workers, Mr. Flake said, noting he had signed on to legislation in past years that employed biometric data.

 Mr. McCain's spokesman declined to discuss Senate talks on the current bill. Two other senators who have backed the ID card in the past, Mr. Schumer and Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois, said through spokesmen that the new Senate legislation wouldn't necessarily call for a biometric card.

 In 2010, Messrs. Graham and Schumer offered an immigration plan that included the requirement for an ID card featuring either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of a person's hand.

 Like the senators, President Barack Obama is calling for an improved worker-verification system, but he doesn't specifically call for a biometric card for all workers. In principles for an immigration overhaul released this year, Mr. Obama called for a "fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant Social Security card." Draft legislation prepared by the White House refers to collecting biometric information from those in the country illegally as part of qualifying for legal status. A senior administration official said the White House wants to deal with "fraud in a way that works and is cost effective."

 The other senators writing the immigration bill are Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), Michael Bennet (D., Colo.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.). Spokesmen for Messrs. Rubio and Bennet declined to comment on the ID cards, while a spokeswoman for Mr. Menendez said the lawmaker has supported employee verification with antifraud measures.

 As an alternative to a biometric card, senators may move to strengthen the E-Verify system by, for example, requiring new hires to answer questions about previous addresses or other details, a person familiar with the Senate group's thinking said.

 Aides to several senators in the group said that a biometric card would be used only for employment verification and that it wouldn't become a mechanism for linking other personal data or replacing drivers' licenses. Still, privacy advocates fear that governments and companies would in time require people to use the biometric card in other spheres of daily life.

 "I subscribe to the 'if you build it, they will come' school of regulation," said Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union, who said he worried that the card would be required to board airplanes, to vote or perhaps purchase a firearm. "It becomes in essence a permission slip to do all of the ordinary things that are your rights as an American," he said.

 Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration-policy expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said: "It's not only a gross violation of individual privacy, it's an enormously high-cost policy that will have an incredibly low to negligible benefit."

 "Every time I've heard someone say 'non-forgeable,' it's code for biometric," Mr. Nowrasteh added.

 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports expanding the E-Verify system, which is now used by a fraction of companies, though some states require all businesses to use it to clear new hires. The chamber hasn't taken a position on biometric IDs, a spokeswoman said.

 Some businesses support a move to biometric cards. If Congress expanded E-Verify nationally, it could widen identity theft and create new paperwork for small businesses, some businesses said. A 2009 study by Westat Inc. for the Department of Homeland Security found that 54% of unauthorized workers who submitted E-Verify paperwork were able to trick the system, though unauthorized workers account for only 6.2% of E-Verify queries.

 A high-tech ID card that could be scanned could solve that problem, said Manuel Cunha Jr., president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno, Calif. The scan would check the employee against a federal database to confirm eligibility to work. "I don't want on the biometric card when I went to the hospital or whether I am married," Mr. Cunha said. "I just want to know Manuel F. Cunha Jr. can work."

 Julie Pace, an immigration lawyer from Phoenix, said she previously opposed a biometric card but would now support it as part of a broader immigration overhaul, arguing it would make worker verification more accurate. "Undocumented workers today would be so happy to come out from the underground," she said.

 It isn't clear how much such a card would cost businesses and taxpayers. When Mr. Schumer proposed biometric identification in 2010, he estimated card scanners could cost businesses as much as $800.

 A 2012 study by the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, law school concluded that a national ID system would cost the government $22.6 billion to create and $2.1 billion each year to operate.

 Most European countries require their citizens to carry some form of ID. The U.K. recently attempted to offer voluntary national ID cards. Citing concerns over cost and civil liberties, it scrapped the plan in 2010.

 —Janet Hook contributed to this article.

 Write to Danny Yadron at danny.yadron@wsj.com

 A version of this article appeared February 21, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Senators in Immigration Talks Mull Federal IDs for All Workers. |||||
A summary of this is?

– Some 53% of American citizens broadly support deportation for illegal immigrants, a Reuters/Ipsos poll finds, with 30% saying most should be deported and 23% saying all should be sent away. Meanwhile, 31% of citizens say the US should let most illegal immigrants stay, and just 5% say all illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain, Reuters reports. The figures mirror similar polls in the past, despite talk of immigration reform in Washington. Still, most Americans back immigration reform, polls have revealed. "It's not Americans' views that are shifting. It is that the political climate is ripe for this discussion" following the election, says a pollster. Meanwhile, senators working on an immigration bill are floating the idea of a "biometric" ID card for federal workers, containing personal information like a fingerprint. All workers in the US, regardless of their citizenship, would have to carry one, the Wall Street Journal reports. But privacy groups are already up in arms about the notion—which hasn't yet made it past the idea stage.


– Ruth Bader Ginsburg is "notorious" for, among other things, her killer workouts, which is maybe why the fit 85-year-old justice brushed off a tumble she took Wednesday evening at her office. However, the Supreme Court issued a statement Thursday noting that after she went home, Ginsburg had "discomfort overnight," and a visit to George Washington University Hospital early Thursday revealed she broke three ribs on her left side, USA Today reports. Ginsburg was admitted for "observation and treatment," the statement says. CNBC notes that Ginsburg's health has been under the microscope of late, due to both her age (she's the oldest Supreme Court justice) and the fact that she's one of just four liberal justices on the court's bench. Six years ago, she suffered a similar health scare and broke a couple of ribs then, too—and didn't make it public until months after the fact. (Over the summer, RBG predicted she had at least five years left on the court.)

Expand this summary.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell in her office and fractured three ribs. The 85-year-old liberal justice was admitted to a hospital Thursday.

 Ginsburg's health has been a matter of intense speculation in recent years. The court's oldest member, Ginsburg has survived multiple bouts with cancer, and in 2014 underwent a procedure to have a stent placed in her right coronary artery.

 The fall happened Wednesday evening.

 "She went home, but after experiencing discomfort overnight, went to George Washington University Hospital early this morning," the court said in a statement Thursday. "Tests showed that she fractured three ribs on her left side and she was admitted for observation and treatment."

 It is not the first time that Ginsburg has fractured her ribs while on the court. In June 2012, Ginsburg fractured two ribs in a fall and did not disclose the injury to the public until months later. The court said at the time that despite the fracture, Ginsburg "did not skip a beat."

 The Brooklyn-native, one of four liberal justices on the nine-member court, has said she plans to serve on the bench until she is 90, and has hired law clerks through 2020.

 Her approach to the law has been described as cautious, though she has been influential in shaping jurisprudence in cases involving gender discrimination, women's reproductive health and international law.

 She was the principal author of a landmark brief that led Supreme Court in 1971 to apply the the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to women.

 Ginsburg, the second of four women to serve on the high court, was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Before joining the court, she worked as the director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.

 News of Ginsburg's fall comes on the same morning as the formal investiture of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's second nominee to the high court.

 The court said that more information would be provided as it became available.

 WATCH: Here's what it's like being a Supreme Court justice ||||| CLOSE Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized after a fall in her office on Wednesday evening left her with three fractured ribs. USA TODAY

 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY)

 WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Thursday morning after falling in her office Wednesday night, the court announced.

 Ginsburg, 85, went home after the fall but continued to experience "discomfort overnight" and went to George Washington University Hospital early Thursday. Tests revealed she fractured three ribs on her left side, and she "was admitted for observation and treatment," according to the court's statement.

 The fall kept Ginsburg from attending Thursday's formal investiture ceremony for new Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The event attracted President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, all other Supreme Court justices and leaders of Washington's legal community.

 Ginsburg, the court's eldest justice, has served for 25 years after being appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. She is the leader of the court's liberal wing.

 She is a medical warrior, having survived colon cancer in 1999, pancreatic cancer a decade later, a heart stent procedure in 2014 and a previous bout with broken ribs. She works out with a personal trainer twice weekly in the Supreme Court's gym to the beat of the PBS NewsHour.

 News of her fall moved swiftly through Washington legal circles Thursday morning, including during and after Kavanaugh's investiture ceremony. Many Ginsburg fans offered support on Twitter.

 Known for her work ethic, Ginsburg wrote the first opinion of the Supreme Court’s term this year on age discrimination. The action marked the third consecutive year in which Ginsburg has written the first opinion of the term. Chief Justice John Roberts has remarked about Ginsburg’s speedy delivery of opinions.

 'Feeling fine' at 85: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fends off retirement

 This year, Ginsburg said she intended to stay on the bench for at least five more years.

 "I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in July, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so I think I have about at least five more years."

 Given her age, some Democrats have expressed concerns about Ginsburg's health. President Trump has appointed two Supreme Court justices since taking office, and another opening on the bench could ensure conservative control of the court for decades. The Senate, which confirms justices, remains in Republican control after Tuesday's election.

 "I pray for Ruth Bader Ginsburg every day," Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said Sunday. "We cannot allow one more Supreme Court justice to be nominated and get through the Senate by this president, or we’ll lose that court for over a generation."

 The second woman appointed to the court – Justice Sandra Day O'Connor became the first in 1981 – Ginsburg is a legend among women's right advocates. She expressed support for the #MeToo movement.

 In recent years, she gained celebrity status among liberals – who lovingly refer to her as the "Notorious RBG" – and was the subject a recent documentary, "RBG." Her biography is the subject of an upcoming feature film, "On the Basis of Sex," in which she is played by actress Felicity Jones.

 Contributing: Herb Jackson, USA TODAY Network

 Ruth Bader Ginsburg on #MeToo: Women of her generation have 'many stories'

 More: Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court

 Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/08/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-after-fall-supreme-court-office/1928409002/ |||||


Josh Elliott, CTVNews.ca

 A British Columbia dog walker has been charged with animal cruelty after six dogs allegedly died in her care last May.

 Emma Paulsen of Langley, B.C. faces five animal cruelty-related charges and one charge of public mischief, according to the British Columbia SPCA.

 Paulsen first reported the six dogs stolen on May 13. She said someone took them from the cab of her vehicle at a Langley dog park while she left to use the washroom. The dogs' bodies were found in a ditch in the Fraser Valley a week later during a community-led search effort.

 According to the Langley RCMP, the dogs died in in the back of the truck from heat stroke the same day Paulsen reported them stolen.

 The temperature rose as high as 25 C on the day the dogs died.

 Jennifer Meyers, whose dog Buddy was among the six that died, said she just wants justice for her pet.

 "I know they suffered, and that's the part that, to this day, I still get sad about," she told CTV News. "I don't think that'll ever go away."

 It's not yet known when Paulsen will make her first court appearance.

 With files from The Canadian Press and CTV Vancouver ||||| METRO VANCOUVER -- The dog walker who told police that dogs in her care were stolen from the back of her truck before they were later found dead in a ditch in Abbotsford has been charged with animal cruelty and public mischief.

 Emma Paulsen, of Delta, faces four charges under the Criminal Code, including killing or injuring an animal and causing unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal, each carrying a maximum prison term of five years, as well as failing to provide for an animal, punishable by up to two years in prison, and reporting an offence when it was not committed, which carries a five-year maximum sentence.

 Paulsen also faces two counts of causing an animal to continue to be in distress, charges that carry, on conviction, fines of up to $75,000 and prison terms of up to two years.

 The dog walker had six dogs in her care, including one of her own, on May 13, a day that reached temperatures as high as 25 C.

 Necropsies on the dogs indicated they died of heat stroke, according to the SPCA.

 The dog walker initially reported the animals were stolen when she left them unattended while using a public washroom in a Langley dog park.

 With a file from Kim Pemberton

 mrobinson@vancouversun.com

 Click here to report a typo or visit vancouversun.com/typo.

 Is there more to this story? We'd like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. CLICK HERE or go to vancouversun.com/moretothestory ||||| Memorial held for Brookswood Six2:11

 Emma Paulsen, the dog walker alleged to have dumped the bodies of six dogs in a ditch in Abbotsford, B.C., has been charged with six animal cruelty-related counts in connection with their deaths.

 On Sunday, the B.C. SPCA said that Paulsen has been charged under the Criminal Code with killing or injuring an animal, causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal, failing to provide the necessities of life to an animal and falsely reporting an offence.

 Animal cruelty officer Marcie Moriarty said Paulsen is also facing two counts of causing an animal to continue to be under distress under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a charge Moriarty said is precedent-setting because it has never been laid before in B.C.

 "It's a preventative section — a duty of care that animal owners owe to pets and so we're quite excited about these charges and we'll wait to see what happens in court," she said.

 When the dogs first went missing Paulsen initially reported they had been stolen from the back of her pickup truck.

 She told police and the dogs' owners that she left her vehicle to use the washroom at a Langley dog park, and when she returned the dogs were gone.

 That sparked a search by the dogs' owners and the Petsearchers.com agency, which was initially hired by the dog owners and Paulsen to find the missing pets.

 Langley RCMP said in May that the animals apparently died while enclosed in Paulsen's vehicle, while it was parked in Richmond.

 The B.C. SPCA took over the investigation shortly afterwards. ||||| VANCOUVER — Langley dog walker Emma Paulsen has been charged with six offences under the Criminal Code of Canada and the BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act after allegedly leaving six dogs in the back of her truck, where they all died from apparent heatstroke.

 “This is a situation which is precedent setting. We are very pleased at Crown’s decision to approve charges under pretty much every single possible section of animal cruelty that could have been in this particular case,” Marcie Moriarty of the SPCA, told Global News.

 The charges under the Criminal Code include killing or injuring an animal, causing unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal, failing to provide adequate care to the dogs and mischief. The Crown also invoked a newer preventative section of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act – enacted in 2012 – which makes it an offence to fail to provide adequate care to an animal.

 Moriarty said a case of this scope – both in terms of the charges and the type tragedy – hasn’t been seen before in Canada.

 Global News reported previously that Paulsen had apparently left the six animals under her care in the back of her truck in May of this year, when she went into a store to run an errand. When she returned, they had all died. Paulsen then panicked and allegedly concocted a story about the dogs being stolen, which led to an almost week-long search for the animals.

 “It’s a catastrophic tragedy she will regret for the rest of her life,” Paulsen’s mother told Global News earlier this year.

 For the dogs’ owners, the news of the charges is what they’ve been waiting to hear. “It’s good news that justice will be served against her for what she put everybody through,” Amber Williams, an owner of one of the dogs, told Global News.

 “I don’t think it really gets any easier because they suffered and that’s the part I don’t think I’ll ever get past,” said Jennifer Myers, who owned Buddy.

 If convicted, Paulsen faces up to five years in jail, a fine of $75,000 and a lifetime ban on owning animals.

 –With files from Kristen Robinson and Paula Baker.

 Vote in our poll! |||||

Write a summary.

– In May, a Canadian dog walker claimed six dogs in her care were stolen from her truck at a dog park in Vancouver—the dogs were found in a ditch a week later. CBC now reports that Emma Paulsen has been charged with dumping the dogs in the ditch herself after they died in her truck; a necropsy confirmed heatstroke, adds the Vancouver Sun. "I know they suffered, and that's the part that, to this day, I still get sad about," one owner, whose dog Buddy died, tells CTV News. Paulsen now faces six "charges under pretty much every single possible section of animal cruelty that could have been in this particular case," an SPCA official tells the Global News, including two counts of causing an animal to continue to be in distress—which has never been charged in British Columbia. She could face jail time and stiff penalties; the distress charges carry a $75,000 fine each.


Article:
Republicans moved in concert Thursday to disrupt deficit reduction talks with the White House, refusing to participate in some cases until President Barack Obama become more personally involved and resolves the divisive issue of taxes.

 It is a high-stakes gamble designed to change the dynamic of the talks and push back hard on the revenue question — a central tenet for the party. But it also betrays a growing defensiveness inside the GOP, as the debt ceiling gets closer with no deal in sight and pressure for negotiators to consider defense cuts and eliminating some tax subsidies.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset VIDEO: Speaker on Cantor leaving talks VIDEO: Dems 'disapointed' POLITICO 44

 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) fired the first shot, announcing he was withdrawing immediately from the negotiations because of the tax question. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) quickly followed with a broadside on the Senate floor, also keyed to the tax issue and titled “Where’s the President?”

 “For weeks, lawmakers have worked around the clock to hammer out a plan that would help us to avert a crisis we all know is coming,” McConnell said. “So it’s worth asking: Where in the world has President Obama been for the last month.”

 “What does he propose? What is he willing to do to reduce the debt and avoid the crisis that is building on his watch?”

 In a joint statement with the chief Senate Republican negotiator, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, McConnell followed up by portraying Obama as a champion of higher taxes at the expense of “a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can’t have both. But we need to hear from him.”

 Cantor had sent mixed signals earlier this week, first saying that he wanted greater involvement by the president and then insisting that he remained committed to the talks led by Vice President Joe Biden. His decision now appeared to catch some in the GOP leadership, including his fellow negotiator Kyl, by surprise. And it came just as Cantor has been on the defensive in the talks over Democratic demands for greater cuts from defense spending.

 Adding to the intrigue was the almost Washington novel orchestration of the announcement. The Wall Street Journal was called in to get the news Thursday morning — the editorial pages of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper are famous for their anti-tax orthodoxy. And Cantor made his move just hours after a Wednesday night meeting at the White House between his sometimes rival, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Obama, who are slated to take over the talks once the Biden negotiations have run their course. ||||| Deficit-reduction talks scheduled for Thursday were cancelled after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) announced he was withdrawing from the negotiations.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 Vice President Biden, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other top White House officials were set to come to the Capitol for the third consecutive day of talks, but that meeting has been called off after Cantor’s decision, a House Democratic aide said.

 Cantor said he was leaving the talks because of the insistence of Democrats for including tax increases in a deal to cut deficits while raising the debt ceiling.

 In a statement, Cantor called on President Obama to “resolve the tax issue," and said he would not take part in a meeting of the group on Thursday.

 “Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue," Cantor said. "Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today's meeting and I believe it is time for the president to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue,” he said.

 Democrats ripped Cantor for the decision, with some suggesting he was quitting so that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would take the fall if Republicans end up agreeing to some tax increases. ||||| Senator Kyl Drops Out of the Debt Talks, Leaving Zero Republicans at the Table

 UPDATE: A Senior Democratic aide says, “Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be a need for revenues and Cantor and Kyl don't want to be the ones to make that deal.”

 ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports:

 Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., will also drop out of the debt talks, a source within his office confirms today. The Arizona Republican’s office will issue a formal statement shortly.

 After House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) dropped out of the talks this morning, Senator Kyl was the lone Republican in the group left. And with his withdrawal late this morning, the group does not have a Republican negotiator left in the room.

 The group was set to meet for the 11 th time this afternoon with Vice President Biden, their third meeting of the week.

 The group started as six – but is now down to four members from Congress. The remaining members are: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.), and House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). |||||Summary:

– And then there were none: Arizona Senator Jon Kyl is joining Eric Cantor in his decision to skip Joe Biden's deficit-reduction talks, which means no Republicans are left on the panel, reports ABC News. The departures come as Mitch McConnell blasted President Obama on the Senate floor, notes Politico, which sees a "concerted effort" by the GOP to force the president to get personally involved in the talks. They've hit an impasse over Democrats' push for tax increases. "I would expect to hear from (Obama)," said Speaker John Boehner. "I think those talks could continue if they're willing to take the tax hikes off the table." One anonymous Democratic senator views Cantor's move this way: “He’s throwing the hot potato to Boehner because it was too hot for him." Biden canceled today's scheduled meeting after Cantor's announcement, reports the Hill. The remaining Democrats: Max Baucus, Daniel Inouye, James Clyburn, and Chris Van Hollen.