#and also enforce your religious freedom to not serve republicans

[madtomedgar]

I'm loving the "well now i will discriminate against homophobes!" responses but I think there's a disconnect around how nasty small town politics works (the jikes are still funny fyi keep making them, they are not in any way bad). The store owners in shitty small towns know they legally can't refuse service, so they maintain a paper thin plausible deniability by not saying it, but dragging their feet and being hostile if you try to shop or eat at their establishment or use their service. They make it unpleasant but rarely impossible. Often this is still enough to run people out of town and make living there too difficult. Now, they have been given the go ahead to go nuts. They can post "no service for x" signs. They (think they) can call the law. They can just tell anyone they think is associated with lgbtq people to leave or else instead of pretending that all the waiters are busy. The tow truck driver knows he is allowed to leave you on the side of the road now. It's going to be taken as a mandate, and a lot of people who were hanging in but not having fun are going to find it impossible to live where they have been living. I think it's fine and funny to try to make that true for bigots in more accepting areas too, but this is going to be hell on small town America.

[gschneider21ahsgov]

Political Party Action

Republican: The republicans stance is more on ensuring order between law enforcement and the American People rather than racial justice as a whole. However they agree that law officials should be held responsible for their actions and when they break the laws themselves they should have Immediate  dismissal and when appropriate prosecution for department officials who have violated their oath to office. They believe the President should take time to strengthen relationships between citizens and law enforcement rather than creating a divide. I believe that the only way for the American people to begin to trust law enforcement lots of reform must be made.

Democrat: The Democrats recognize there is a big issue with our justice system right now. They understand that, “Our system has criminalized poverty, over policed and underserved Black and Latino communities, and cut public services.” They recognize police brutality and want to fix this issue. The Criminal Justice system needs reform. They recognize the hardships minorities must endure in this country such as, “Black parents must have “the talk” with their children, to try to protect them from the very police officers who are supposed to be sworn to protect and serve them.”  Their plan is to start with the schools and communities. By getting rid of the school-to-prison pipeline and eliminating law enforcement in schools. Democrats beloved's schools need  funding to hire, “ guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, or school psychologists.” “Democrats will establish strict national standards governing the use of force, including banning the use of chokeholds and carotid holds and permitting deadly force only when necessary and a last resort to prevent an imminent threat to life And we will ban racial and religious profiling in law enforcement.” I agree with everything the democrats have to saw about racial justice. it is clear that it is happening and they are admitting to it and have plans in place to end the racial discrimination in the justice system.

Libertarian: Libertarians Believe that the government should never be allowed to violate our rights. they want to repeal laws that create crimes without victims like the medicinal or recreational use of drugs. They believe that everyone has the the rights the due process, a speedy trial, and innocence until proven guilty. They are against intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains. On the topic of discrimination, Libertarians believe that, “Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation” I agree with their stance on justice. All Americans should have equal rights and it is wrong to violate these rights based on race. 

Green: The Green Party is committed to, “Complete reparations to the African American community of this nation for the past four hundred plus years of genocide, slavery, land-loss, destruction of original identity and the stark disparities which haunt the present evidenced in unemployment statistics, substandard and inadequate education.” They understand that big steps must be taken to end the abuse that minorities are dealing with. This includes ending criminalization in Black and Brown communities. they realize that we need to eradicate poverty and invest in health care in order to fix these issues. They want to ban all Confederate flags and signs of white supremacy. For Law enforcement they want to end the racial profiling and stop harassing a violence against minorities with, “ No other justification than race or ethnic background.” They support measures to end racism and police brutality against people of color. The Green Party is mostly for fixing the mistakes the country made in the past. I agree with their stance on fixing relationships between the justice system and the minorities of this country. I agree that actions must be taken to end racial profiling in the police force.

Peace and Freedom: The Peace and Freedom party recognizes the rise in racial discrimination. They recognize that, “Minority families are disproportionately victimized by cutbacks in health care, education, child care, welfare, food stamps and jobs.” This party demands that racial discrimination is ended and that we must enforce anti discrimination measures in hiring and promotion. They believe that police and prison officials must be held accountable and adequately punished when they brutalize and murder minorities. They understand that the actions by law enforcement cannot go unprosecuted. They believe that we must take action to ensure that all people are equal in the eyes of the government and American people. I agree with the Peached and Freedom party as well. Police must be held accountable and we need to take action and create plans to ensure that the rights of all citizens are not violated.

Which party position do you identify with the most? Is that surprising? 

I identify most with the Democratic parties position. This is not surprising to me because I have researched their views on Racial justice before.

Would you vote for their presidential candidate?

I would vote for their presidential candidate.

Presidential debate assessment: Was your civic action issue a topic during the debate? If so, summarize the position taken by each candidate during the debate; the effectiveness of their argument; whether you agree or disagree 

Racial Justice was brought up during the debate.

Joe Biden: Recognizes the discrimination against black Americans and the loss of justice in the case of Breonna Taylor. Biden recognized that police reform is needed but is not for defunding the police. He also recognized the protests and supports all peaceful protesting. He does not agree with any of the violence seen. Biden’s points supported the dead of the Democrats on the issues of racial justice.

I agree with Biden on many things. I do not like the violence at protests but majority of the protests are extremely peaceful. I think that we need a lot of police reform and better training for the police for situations with minorities and mental health crisis.

Donald Trump: Claims all the protests are violent .ended racial sensitivity training says it is racist.says racial sensitivity training are sick and bad ideas and are radical.He refused to condemn white supremacy and instead attacked the left. His claims were contradicted the points the republicans made. Instead of trying to strengthen bonds between law enforcement and American citizens Trump further divided them by refusing to acknowledge police brutality and the failures of the justice system.

I do not agree with any of Donals Trumps points. He failed to acknowledge the police brutality as well as refusing to condemn white supremacy groups. It terrified me to hear that he ended racial sensitivity trainings because I believe that those training are extremely important.

[shansen21ahsgov]

Blog Post #3: Political Party Action

Republican

The greatest asset of the American economy is the American worker. Legal immigrants are making vital contributions to every aspect of national life. They are committed to American values and they strengthen, enrich our culture, and enable us to better compete with the rest of the world. They are specifically grateful for the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces. They agree that American’s immigration policy must serve the national interest of the United States. Illegal immigrants endangers everyone, exploits taxpayers, and insults all who aspire to be an American legally. Our highest priority must be to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws. This is why we support building a wall along our southern border. They endorse the SAVE program in which it ensures that public funds are not given to illegal persons in the country. The Republicans believe that sanctuary cities violate federal law which is why they should not be eligible for federal funding. States have the constitutional authority to take steps to reduce illegal immigration. They condemn the Obama Administration’s lawsuits against states that are seeking to enforce federal law. From the beginning, our country has been a haven of refuge and asylum. This should continue but with major changes. Asylum should be limited to cases of political, ethnic or religious persecution. To ensure our national security, refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country, especially those whose homelands have been the breeding grounds for terrorism. I agree with wanting to strengthen our border and protect the citizens of the U.S. I also agree that public funds should not be going to undocumented immigrants and instead to people who are actually citizens. I agree that illegal immigrants endanger parts of society, exploits tax money and insult all who aspire to come to America, legally. 

Democratic

The bedrock American idea, that we are one, has been a part of our country from its earliest days. The Trump administration has repudiated the idea and abandoned our values as a diverse, compassionate and welcoming country. They say the Trump administration has been cruel in the extreme. The Democrats say that Trump has been forcibly separating families, putting children in cages, endangering lives by denying Covid-19 tests and banning people from travelling to the U.S. based on their country of origin. Democrats believe “America can do better.” Democrats will reinstate protections for Dreamers and the parents of American citizen children. Democrats believe that the fight to end systemic and structural cruel racism in our country extends to our immigration system. Democrats believe they should rovide a path to citizenship for all illegal immigration in our county. They want to promote workers right because they know that abusive employers make all workers suffer, most importantly immigrants. Democrats will address the root causes of immigration which are violence and security, poverty and corruption, lack of education and economic opportunity. They want to renew American diplomacy as our tool of “first resort” and rebuild our partnerships and alliances. I agree and disagree with these policies. I do not agree with the things they have been saying about the Trump administration and I feel like they are very bias in their writing. All the other platforms did not mention another party except this one.

Green

Immigration and the large number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has become a ot political issue. The Green party thinks that if it were economically possible to provide for their families, many would choose to remain in their native countries. Any immigration policy should be seen as a way to address all people humanitarian needs. The Green party stands for social justice for all those living in this country regardless of their immigration status. Above all, policy and law must be humane. The party accepts as a goal a world in which persons can freely choose to live in and work in any country he or she desires. Although they believe countries do have the right to know the identity of the person seeking to enter and also the right to limit who can come in to protect public safety. They think there cannot be any true solutions to the conflicts created by immigration until we are able to organize globally the campaign to drive down workers living standards everywhere. They will work toward the goal of curbing the power of multinationals. I agree that if it were economically possible people would probably want to stay in their native country. I do not agree that undocumented immigrants should be receiving the same economic and political justice and people who actually are citizens. 

Libertarian

The Libertarian party does not mention immigration on their platform. Their preamble identifies that they “seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.” They defend each person's right to engage in activity that is peaceful and honest and they welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world they seek to build is one where “individuals are free to follow their dreams in their own ways, without interference from government.” Their ultimate goal is “a world set free in our lifetime.” It is confusing to me why this party does not identify immigration because one of their main goals is to allow freedom for all, and I am confused whether they are talking about worldly or just in the states. They promote diversity and they say that freedom also promotes a diverse culture, so I can infer they are promoting immigration in order to continue that diversity.

Peace and Freedom

The Peace and Freedom Party calls themselevs “Californias feminist socialist party.” This party was born from the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism, racial equality and internationalism. They say they represent the working class and those without capital in a capitalist society. Their goal is to organize toward a world where cooperation replaces competition and a world where all people are fed, clothed and used. They want all women and men to have equal status and all individuals may freely do what they desire. They want a world of freedom and peace where every community retains cultural integrity and lives in harmony with others. On the topic of immigration, they say that immigrant workers are hounded by government authorities, worked and housed in substandard conditions and blamed my Republicans and Democrats for society's problems. They call for open borders, they demand an end to deportation of immigrants, and full political, social and economic rights for resident non-citizens.

Which party position do you identify with the most? Is that surprising?

I identify most with the Republican party position. It is not surprising to me, I have always been very interested in immigration and have always found myself connecting most with the policies of the Republican party. I like how they state that the foundation of the American society is the American worker. A lot of people pin Republicans as people who do not like immigrants and immigration but in the platform it literally states that “immigrants are making vital contributions to our way of life.” I agree with this and I connect with their stance on immigration and what to do about undocumented immigrants.

Would you vote for their presidential candidate?

I would vote for the Republican presidential candidate because I think we as a country should vote based on policies the candidate has provided over personal emotions. I think this plays a major part in the large split between the two parties. As well, I think the Trump administration has taken strides to secure America and better the American citizens through their immigration policies.

Was your civic action issue a topic during the debate?

Unfortunately, immigration was not brought up in the presidential debate.

[newstfionline]

Sunday, November 1, 2020

Rare Halloween blue moon is a treat (Space) Skywatchers, take note: The moon will be full this Halloween night across the entire United States. This is a truly special confluence of spookiness; a Halloween full moon visible for all time zones on Earth hasn’t happened since 1944, according to the Farmers’ Almanac. It won’t happen again until 2039. But wait, there’s more: The Oct. 31 full moon also happens to be a “blue moon,” a designation for the second full moon to occur in a single calendar month. Blue moons are relatively rare as well, occurring on average just once every 2.5 years or so. We last saw one in March 2018. And in case you were wondering—“blue moon” has nothing to do with color. The moon can sometimes appear bluish, thanks to the scattering of light by dust or smoke particles in Earth’s atmosphere, but such effects are not tied to the moon’s phases at all.

Study: 1 to 2 million tons of US plastic trash go astray (AP) More than a million tons a year of America’s plastic trash isn’t ending up where it should. The equivalent of as many as 1,300 plastic grocery bags per person is landing in places such as oceans and roadways, according to a new study of U.S. plastic trash. In 2016—the last year enough data was available and before several countries cracked down on imports of American waste—the United States generated 46.3 million tons (42 million metric tons) of plastic waste, by far the most in the world. Between 2.7% and 5.3% of that was mismanaged—not burned, placed in landfills or otherwise disposed of properly, according to a study in Friday’s journal Science Advances. Between 1.2 million and 2.5 million tons (1.1 million to 2.2 million metric tons) of plastic generated in the U.S. were dropped on land, rivers, lakes and oceans as litter, were illegally dumped or shipped abroad then not properly disposed of, the study found. If you took nearly 2.5 million tons (2.2 million metric tons) of mismanaged plastic waste—bottles, wrappers, grocery bags and the like—and dumped it on the White House lawn, “it would pile as high as the Empire State Building,” said co-author Jenna Jambeck, an environmental engineering professor at the University of Georgia.

Exorcism: Increasingly frequent, including after US protests (AP) In popular culture, exorcism often serves as a plot device in chilling films about demonic possession. This month, two Roman Catholic archbishops showed a different face of exorcism—performing the rite at well-attended outdoor ceremonies to drive out any evil spirits lingering after acrimonious protests. In Portland, Oregon, Archbishop Alexander Sample led a procession of more than 200 people to a city park on Oct. 17, offered a prayer, then conducted a Latin exorcism rite intended to purge the community of evil. The event followed more than four months of racial justice protests in Portland, mostly peaceful but sometimes fueling violence and riots. On the same day, 600 miles to the south, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone performed an exorcism ceremony outside a Catholic church in San Rafael, where protesters had earlier toppled a statue of Father Junipero Serra. The prayers were different from those offered when a person is believed to be the subject of demonic possession. Religious studies professor Andrew Chesnut of Virginia Commonwealth University said exorcism, in its traditional form as a demon-chaser, is increasingly widespread around the world, though there are no official statistics. One perennial challenge for modern-day exorcists is to determine if a person potentially possessed by the devil is in fact suffering problems better addressed by mental health professionals.

After year of disruption, America set to choose a path ahead (AP) After a year of deep disruption, America is poised for a presidential election that renders a verdict on the nation’s role in the world and the direction of its economy, on its willingness to contain an escalating pandemic and its ability to confront systemic racial inequity. But the two men on the ballot, President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden, offer more than just differing solutions for the country’s most pressing problems. The choice before voters is a referendum on the role of the presidency itself and a test of the sturdiness of democracy, with the president challenging the legitimacy of the outcome even before Election Day and law enforcement agencies braced for the possibility of civil unrest. “There’s more than just your standard ideological difference between the two candidates. There’s a fundamentally different view of what the presidency is and what leadership means for the nation,” said Jeffrey Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. Voters appear to recognize the moment: More than 86 million people have already cast ballots, shattering records for early voting. Whichever candidate wins the White House will confront the challenge of governing through deep divisions.

Venezuela coup plotters met at Trump Doral. Central figure says U.S. officials knew of plan. (Miami Herald) In a challenge to denials of government involvement, the ex-U.S. special operations sergeant whose security firm took part in a botched Venezuelan coup last May said two Trump administration officials met with and expressed support to planners of Operation Gideon, a Bay of Pigs-type operation that tried to oust Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. It’s a story of bungling, bravado and cloak-and-dagger plotting, with plans shared in clandestine meetings in the back of limousines while rolling through Miami, in restaurants and even at dusk on the 12th fairway of the Red Course of Trump Doral, the Miami Herald/McClatchy has learned. The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó, whose name appears on a contract purportedly signed with the coup plotters. The complete document—obtained by reporters from the Miami Herald and McClatchy, its parent company—contains a never-before-seen clause that allows Guaidó to disavow any involvement if the mission failed. The failed coup resulted in the May 3 capture of two former American soldiers and 47 Venezuelans and led to the death of six would-be freedom-fighters who appear to have been executed.

WHO: Europe again ‘the epicenter’ of coronavirus pandemic with 10 million cases (The Hill) The 53-country region that makes up Europe under the umbrella of the World Health Organization (WHO) said it reached a record of confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 1.5 million new infections last week, the organization’s European director said Thursday. There have been more than 10 million confirmed cases since the pandemic began this year, according to The Associated Press. “Europe is at the epicenter of this pandemic once again,” WHO European regional director Hans Kluge said in a meeting with European health ministers, according to AP. “At the risk of sounding alarmist, I must express our very real concern.” Kluge said that deaths have increased by more than 30 percent in the past week and hospitalizations have reached their highest levels since spring, AP reported.

Terror attacks in France over Mohammad cartoons spark debate on secularism, Islamophobia (USA Today) The three recent assaults, described by France’s President Emmanuel Macron as “Islamist terror attacks,” have reignited long-simmering tensions in a country where secular values are deeply held and proclaimed. They come also as Macron has sought to crack down on extremism in France following a spate of terrorist attacks in recent years that have, according to Macron, partially resulted from a “counter society” that seeks “Islamist separatism” at odds with France’s republican values. Muslims are a relatively small minority in Europe, comprising roughly 5% of the population, according to the most recent estimates by the Pew Research Center, a Washington, D.C.-based “fact tank.” In France, the Muslim share of the population is the region’s highest, at around 9%. Macron has outlined a series of measures aimed at quashing religious “separatism” and freeing France from what he has described as radical “foreign influences.” But Dalia Mogahed, a former advisor on faith to President Obama, and now research director of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a think tank that focuses on issues that affect American Muslims, said Macron and the French establishment more broadly have been wrong to portray the controversy over the cartoons as one that pits freedom of speech against blasphemy. She said the cartoons need to be understood against the background of rising Islamophobia in France across the political spectrum. “They are the equivalent of the N-word. They are equivalent of blackface. They are racial slurs,” she said. The cartoons, Mogahed added, “target a vulnerable, marginalized, disempowered and demonized community by a powerful institution, who are then further demonized, sometimes by the state, for protesting those slurs.” Mogahed said believing the cartoons are offensive should not in any way be understood as justification for any form of violence, and indeed governments and Muslim leaders and organizations across France and the world have condemned the attacks. However, she said it it was “a myth” and “completely disingenuous” of France to project the idea that “it is all open and anyone can say anything they want to anyone.” She noted, for example, that Holocaust denial is criminalized in France. Free expression is “not being applied consistently” in France she said, adding that in his support for the cartoons to be published Macron is effectively “imposing a different kind of state religion” that she referred to as “French Republic nationalism.”

Nearly 3 months after vote, Belarus protests still go strong (AP) Nearly three months after Belarus’ authoritarian president’s re-election to a sixth term in a vote widely seen as rigged, demonstrators keep swarming the streets of Belarusian cities to demand his resignation in the most massive and sustained wave of protests the ex-Soviet nation has ever seen. While President Alexander Lukashenko has relied on massive arrests and intimidation tactics to hold on to power, the continuing rallies have cast an unprecedented challenge to his 26-year rule. Authorities have responded to protests triggered by Aug. 9 election that gave Lukashenko a landslide victory over Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya by unleashing a violent post-election crackdown. Police dispersed peaceful demonstrators with stun grenades and rubber bullets, detained thousands and beat hundreds, which caused protests to swell and prompted the U.S. and the European Union to introduce sanctions against Belarusian officials. Tsikhanouskaya, who went to Lithuania after the vote under pressure from authorities, called for a nationwide strike this week that so far has failed to halt production at state-run industrial plants forming the backbone of the Belarusian economy. But observers predict that economic troubles amid a surge in coronavirus infections will fuel discontent and steadily erode Lukashenko’s grip on power.

70-year-old pulled alive as Turkey quake death toll hits 53 (AP) Rescue workers extricated a 70-year-old man from a collapsed building in western Turkey on Sunday, some 34 hours after a strong earthquake in the Aegean Sea struck Turkey and Greece, killing at least 53 people and injuring more than 900. It was the latest series of remarkable rescues after the Friday afternoon earthquake, which was centered in the Aegean northeast of the Greek island of Samos. Ahmet Citim, 70, was pulled out from the rubble shortly after midnight Sunday and was hospitalized. Health Minister Fahrettin Koca tweeted that he said: “I never lost my hope.” Turkey has a mix of older buildings and lightly regulated cheap new construction, which can lead to serious damage and deaths when earthquakes hit.

Philippines orders evacuation as world’s strongest 2020 typhoon approaches (Reuters) Philippine officials on Saturday ordered evacuation of thousands of residents in the southern part of the main Luzon island as a category 5 storm that is the world’s strongest this year approaches the Southeast Asian nation. Typhoon Goni, with 215 kph (133 miles) sustained winds and gusts of up to 265 kph (164 mph), will make landfall on Sunday as the strongest typhoon to hit the Philippines since Haiyan that killed more than 6,300 people in November 2013. Pre-emptive evacuations have started in coastal and landslide-prone communities in the provinces of Camarines Norte and Camarines Sur, while Albay provincial government would order residents in risky areas to leave their homes, Gremil Naz, a local disaster official, told DZBB radio station. “The strength of this typhoon is no joke.”

Tanzania, once envy of the region, watches democracy slide (AP) Vote-counting was far from over when Tanzanian opposition leader Seif Sharif Hamad was frustrated enough to call people onto the streets. As thwarted observers alleged the most blatant election fraud in the country’s history, and with no way to challenge the results in court, there was little to do but protest. But Hamad and others didn’t get far. As they walked toward a roundabout in the semi-autonomous region of Zanzibar on Thursday, police fired tear gas, then arrested them—Hamad’s second arrest in a week. A party official, Ismail Jussa, was badly beaten by soldiers and hospitalized. On the eve of the vote, at least 10 people in Zanzibar were killed. “We were a cradle of peace,” their colleague, ACT Wazalendo party campaign manager Emmanuel Mvula, told The Associated Press after describing the events. But after witnessing Tanzania’s sharp turn away from democratic ideals, “I’m worried for our future as a nation.”

U.S. special forces rescue American held in Nigeria (Reuters) U.S. special forces rescued an American citizen who had been kidnapped by armed men in an operation on Saturday in northern Nigeria that is believed to have killed several of his captors, U.S. officials said. Forces including Navy SEALs rescued 27-year-old Philip Walton, who had been abducted on Tuesday from his home in neighboring southern Niger, two U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity, adding that no U.S. troops were hurt. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Fox News that the Trump administration had over the years rescued 55 hostages in 24 countries.

[rapeculturerealities]

On Thursday, the president of the United States literally made a rape joke, seeming to equate DNA testing kits with rape kits and ripping the frailty of the “#MeToo generation,” at a rally in Montana—this was the same day he hired the former Fox News executive known for covering systemic sexual harassment at the company. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking the president’s words are somehow separable from his actions—this administration’s cruelty toward women and of course, all marginalized people, is the shared foundation of its rhetoric and policy agenda.

The president of the United States, accused by more than a dozen women of sexual misconduct, considers rape a joke, and has placed women’s right to bodily autonomy on the chopping block. These are facts, and so is this: There is a War on Women—there always has been—and President Trump is using his words, deeds, and every ounce of his power to take it to new extremes.

President Trump meets with potential Supreme Court nominees—all of whom would gut Roe v. Wade

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, leaving an opening on the bench that President Trump will now use to fulfill his campaign promise of dismantling the precedent of Roe v. Wade. Trump and Vice President Pence have been clear about this goal since day one: stack courts across the country with anti-choice judges; appoint Supreme Court justices who are hand-picked by an organization with a stringent anti-abortion litmus test; and then, allow the radical, anti-choice legislation being churned out by the states to work its way through the courts.

This agenda has been enabled thus far by the Republican-controlled Senate, and without Kennedy’s swing vote which has protected Roe for the past 30 of its 45 years of existence, things are looking predictably bleak. This week, despite the president’s pivoting about whether his SCOTUS nominee will oppose and be the vote to criminalize abortion, we know what he said in 2016, and we know that any Federalist Society-approved nominee will rule against abortion every time it goes to the high court.

As of Thursday, Trump has narrowed his search to three candidates—Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Raymond Kethledge. Barrett is on the record calling Roe v. Wade an “erroneous decision,” and Kavanaugh has supported the Trump administration’s agenda of denying detained undocumented women abortion access, if that offers any perspective as to what any of these candidates will mean for reproductive rights.

President Trump will announce his decision this Monday. Your senators need to hear from you, and abortion funds and women’s health clinics need your support. The threat our human rights face is huge, and what’s at stake is huge—anyone who tells you different is either willfully ignorant or gaslighting you. It’s OK to be afraid. But don’t allow yourself to believe that you are helpless. There’s something each of us can do, and so that’s what we’re going to do.

Federal judge blocks enforcement of Arkansas law effectively banning medication abortion

On Monday, a district court judge issued an injunction blocking a 2015 law in Arkansas that effectively bans medication abortion from taking effect. The same judge previously issues an injunction in 2016, only for it to be overturned by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and passed on to the Supreme Court.

You’ve probably read about this law before; it requires that doctors offering medication abortion services have a contract with a second doctor who has admitting privileges at a hospital, and it’s been working its way through the courts for the past three years. In May, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, upholding the 8th Circuit Court, only for a lawsuit to be filed again; this week a district court judge has again blocked the law.

If this law were to take effect, Arkansas would be reduced to just one abortion provider to serve the whole state. This is already the reality for a handful of states, where women are forced to travel great distances or even out-of-state just to access their human right to an abortion. This law is justified by the objectively disproven notion that medication abortion is unsafe, when it has a far lower risk of complications than many everyday health services. Abortions in general are less likely to send you to the emergency room than colonoscopies or having your tonsils removed, which means the only justification for hospital admitting privilege requirements is—you guessed it—sexism.

Especially in light of the crisis at the Supreme Court, laws like this highlight how abortion rights will be at stake regardless of whether the precedent of Roe v. Wade itself is overturned. Justices appointed by Trump who oppose abortion rights would likely defend laws like this, despite how Roe protects the right to abortion without undue burden. In other words, the battle at the Supreme Court, at all courts, and in every single governing body in this country is about more than protecting the words “Roe v. Wade”—it’s about fighting to ensure those words still mean something, for all women, everywhere in this country.

Tennessee is on the verge of offering OTC birth control

Now more than two years after passing the Tennessee General Assembly, a bill to give women access to hormonal birth control including the pill and the patch, without visiting a doctor, will likely go into effect later this month in Tennessee. While a handful of other states have passed similar laws, implementing it has been an uphill battle because there’s virtually no precedent for this.

As noted by NPR’s Nashville arm, accessing hormonal contraception is still required by federal law to necessitate a prescription on record. In order to bypass this, states that pass laws to make birth control accessible over the counter lower these requirements to be “as simple as possible,” according to NPR. In Tennessee, this means filling out a health questionnaire and receiving information about birth control side effects in order to access it at one’s local pharmacy.

Hormonal birth control has been proven to be as safe or safer than most of the medication you can purchase without a prescription across the country. As with restrictions on abortion access, let’s not delude ourselves: The hoops women are forced to jump through to access safe health care that they need to make fundamental life decisions and take care of themselves isn’t about safety—it’s about control.

And all of this, again, goes back to the Supreme Court, and what’s at stake today. The right of unmarried women to access birth control was only established in 1972 with Eisenstadt v. Baird, and in light of this administration’s attacks on the contraceptive mandate, Title X funding, and its weaponization of “religious freedom” to strip women of health care, nothing is safe. The War on Women is not only occurring but also mounting, and everything is on the table.

Good on Tennessee, which isn’t always the friendliest state for reproductive rights, but barriers still exist and will likely only increase in the years to come. It’s on all of us to fight back.

[patriotsnet]

Why Are There Democrats And Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-are-there-democrats-and-republicans/

Why Are There Democrats And Republicans

What Republican And Democrats Believe

Why Democrats and Republicans Are Claiming A Midterm Win

Lets start with this example. There are one or more reasons why you chose that person to be your friend. It could be because of how he or she talks, sense of humor, intelligence, educational background, ideology, or other factors.

The bottom line is you made the individual your friend because of one or more factors you discovered in that person that pleases you. This explains why most people would prefer joining republicans than Democrats and vice versa.

Republicans and Democrats have diverse ideologies and beliefs. These beliefs or ideology is part of what draws people to join either political party.

Lets start with Republicans. What do Republicans believe in?

Republicans boast libertarian and centrist factions. But they primarily believe in social conservative policies. They abide by laws that help conserve their traditional values. These include opposition to abortion, marijuana use, and same-sex marriage.

So the Republican Partys platform is generally centered on American conservatism. It comprises establishment conservatives, Freedom Caucus, or Tea Party members, described as right-wing, populist, and far-right.

The Republican Partys position has changed over time. They now transcend beyond traditional values, which often includes Christian background. The Republicans evolved position now includes fiscal conservatism and foreign policy.

Heres a quick summary of what the Republican Party believes in:

Heres a quick look at what Democrats believe in:

Virginia State Legislator And Governor

At the start of the Revolution, Jefferson was a and was named commander of the Militia on September 26, 1775. He was then elected to the for Albemarle County in September 1776, when finalizing a state constitution was a priority.For nearly three years, he assisted with the constitution and was especially proud of his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, which forbade state support of religious institutions or enforcement of religious doctrine. The bill failed to pass, as did his legislation to disestablish the , but both were later revived by .

Jefferson was elected for one-year terms in 1779 and 1780. He transferred the state capital from Williamsburg to , and introduced measures for public education, religious freedom, and revision of inheritance laws.

In April of the same year, his daughter Lucy died at age one. A second daughter of that name was born the following year, but she died at age three.

Red States Outnumber Blue States

In February 2016, Gallup reported that for the first time since Gallup started tracking, red states now outnumber blue states.

In 2008, 35 states leaned Democratic and this number is down to only 14 now. In the same time, the number of Republican leaning states rose from 5 to 20. Gallup determined 16 states to be competitive, i.e., they leaned toward neither party. Wyoming, Idaho and Utah were the most Republican states, while states that leaned the most Democratic were Vermont, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

Also Check: Are There More Democrats Or Republicans In The Senate

Political Coalitions Are About More Than Just Income Redistribution

Posted December 8, 2014

In his 2004 book, journalist Thomas Frank asked: Whats the matter with Kansas? Ever since, many liberals have taken it as an article of faith that if working-class whites only knew what was good for them then theyd vote for Democrats.

The usual rebuttal from political science is to point out that many poorer whites in fact do vote for Democrats. Or, at least, poorer whites are much more likely to vote Democratic than are richer whites. Its just not the case — even in Kansas — that working-class whites are ignoring their redistributive interests in their voting choices. Still, it makes sense to wonder why Democrats win the poorest whites by a nose rather than a mile.

Many conservatives similarly ask: Whats the matter with Harvard? Ive studied the Harvard/Radcliffe Class of 1977 . On the whole, its a fantastically wealth group, with family incomes typically in the top 1% or 2% of the country. Yet for every Republican there are around six Democrats.

With Harvard as well, though, its still not the case that people are ignoring their redistributive interests. In the Class of 77, the richest members are less likely to favor Democrats than are the merely well-off or poorer. Still, it makes sense to wonder why Republicans are in such short supply among Ivy League alumni.

Income and Education

Parties are Coalitions

Kansas and Harvard

Jason Weeden is author of The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind .

Related articles:

The Philosophy Behind Republican Economic Policy

Republicans advocate supply-side economics that primarily benefits businesses and investors. This theory states that tax cuts on businesses allow them to hire more workers, in turn increasing demand and growth. In theory, the increased revenue from a stronger economy offsets the initial revenue loss over time.

Republicans advocate the right to pursue prosperity without government interference. They argue this is achieved by self-discipline, enterprise, saving, and investing.

Republicans business-friendly approach leads most people to believe that they are better for the economy. A closer look reveals that Democrats are, in many respects, actually better.

Don’t Miss: How Many Senate Republicans Are There

Secretary Of State And Secretary Of War

Monroe returned to the Virginia House of Burgesses and was elected to another term as governor in 1811, but served only four months. In April 1811, Madison appointed Monroe as Secretary of State in hopes of shoring up the support of the more radical factions of the Democratic-Republicans. Madison also hoped that Monroe, an experienced diplomat with whom he had once been close friends, would improve upon the performance of the previous Secretary of State, . Madison assured Monroe that their differences regarding the Monroe-Pinkney Treaty had been a misunderstanding, and the two resumed their friendship. On taking office, Monroe hoped to negotiate treaties with the British and French to end the attacks on American merchant ships. While the French agreed to reduce the attacks and release seized American ships, the British were less receptive to Monroe’s demands. Monroe had long worked for peace with the British, but he came to favor war with Britain, joining with “war hawks” such as Speaker of the House . With the support of Monroe and Clay, Madison asked Congress to declare war upon the British, and Congress complied on June 18, 1812, thus beginning the .

Past Jumps In Party Affiliations

The bump in Democratic affiliation following Biden’s inauguration mirrors that of former President Barack Obama’s first term, Jones said.

“That was really the high point that we’ve seen; kind of the 2006-2009 period, when really the majority of Americans either identified as Democrats outright or were independents but they leaned toward the party,” he said.;”Our data on this only goes back to the ’90s, but it’s pretty much the only time we consistently had one party with the majority of Americans on their side.”

Republican advantages, though rarer and more short-lived, followed the Gulf War in 1991 when George H.W. Bush was in office and the 9/11 terrorist attacks during President George W. Bush’s term, according to Gallup. More people also reported GOP affiliation after the 1994, 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

Whether the Republican Party can regain advantage during the 2022 midterm elections may rely on the successes of the Biden administration, according to Jones.

“A lot of it is going to depend on how things go over the course of the year. If things get better with the coronavirus and the economy bounces back and a lot of people expect Biden can keep relatively strong approval ratings, then that will be better for the Democrats,” Jones said.;”But if things start to get worse unemployment goes up or coronavirus gets worse; then his approval is going to go down. It’s going to make things a lot better for the Republican Party for the midterm next year.”

Also Check: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

Lewis And Clark Expedition

Jefferson anticipated further westward settlements due to the Louisiana Purchase and arranged for the exploration and mapping of the uncharted territory. He sought to establish a U.S. claim ahead of competing European interests and to find the rumored . Jefferson and others were influenced by exploration accounts of in Louisiana and Captain in the Pacific , and they persuaded Congress in 1804 to fund an expedition to explore and the newly acquired territory to the Pacific Ocean.

Jefferson appointed and to be leaders of the . In the months leading up to the expedition, Jefferson tutored Lewis in the sciences of mapping, botany, natural history, mineralogy, and astronomy and navigation, giving him unlimited access to his library at Monticello, which included the largest collection of books in the world on the subject of the geography and natural history of the North American continent, along with an impressive collection of maps.

The expedition lasted from May 1804 to September 1806 and obtained a wealth of scientific and geographic knowledge, including knowledge of many Indian tribes.

Other expeditions

In addition to the Corps of Discovery, Jefferson organized three other western expeditions: the and George Hunter expedition on the , the on the , and the into the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest. All three produced valuable information about the American frontier.

How Did John Quincy Adams Become President

Democrats Vs Republicans | What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

In the U.S. presidential election of 1824, Andrew Jackson received 99 electoral votes, Adams 84, William Crawford 41, and Henry Clay 37. Because no one had a majority, the;House of Representatives chose between the three top candidates. Clay supported Adams, ensuring his victory and the bitter opposition of the Jacksonians to all his initiatives.

You May Like: How Many Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump

The Parties Change Course

After the war, the Republican Party became more and more oriented towards economic growth, industry, and big business in Northern states, and in the beginning of the 20th;century it had reached a general status as a party for the more wealthy classes in society. Many Republicans therefore gained financial success in the prosperous 1920s until the stock market crashed in 1929 initiating the era of the Great Depression.

Now, many Americans blamed Republican President Herbert Hoover for the financial damages brought by the crisis. In 1932 the country therefore instead elected Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt to be president.

The Democratic Party largely stayed in power until 1980, when Republican Ronald Reagan was elected as president. Reagans social conservative politics and emphasis on cutting taxes, preserving family values, and increasing military funding were important steps in defining the modern Republican Party platform.

Energy Issues And The Environment

There have always been clashes between the parties on the issues of energy and the environment. Democrats believe in restricting drilling for oil or other avenues of fossil fuels to protect the environment while Republicans favor expanded drilling to produce more energy at a lower cost to consumers. Democrats will push and support with tax dollars alternative energy solutions while the Republicans favor allowing the market to decide which forms of energy are practical.

Also Check: What National Policies Did Republicans Pursue During The Civil War

Which Party Is Better For The Economy

Princeton University economists Alan Binder and Mark Watson argue the U.S. economy has grown faster when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican. “The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,” they write.

However, rather than chalking up the performance difference to how each party manages monetary or fiscal policy, Binder and Watson said Democratic presidencies had benefitted from “more benign oil shocks, superior performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.”

Republicans Claim That Raising The Minimum Wage Would Kill Jobs And Hurt The Economy

There is far more evidence to the contrary. Cities and states that have higher minimum wages tend to have better rates of job creation and economic growth.

Detailed analyses show that job losses due to increases in the minimum wage are almost negligible compared to the economic benefits of higher wages. Previous increases in the minimum wage have never resulted in the dire consequences that Republicans have predicted.

Republicans have accused President Obama of cutting defense spending to the bone. This chart of 2014 discretionary spending firmly disproves that argument.

Don’t Miss: Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

What Is Thomas Jefferson Remembered For

Thomas Jefferson is remembered for being the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States. The fact that he owned over 600 enslaved people during his life while forcefully advocating for human freedom and equality made Jefferson one of Americas most problematic and paradoxical heroes.

Thomas Jefferson, , draftsman of the of the United States and the nations first secretary of state and second vice president and, as the third president , the statesman responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. An early advocate of total separation of church and state, he also was the founder and architect of the University of Virginia and the most eloquent American proponent of individual freedom as the core meaning of the American Revolution.

Presidential Election Of 1808

Speculation regarding Madisons potential succession of Jefferson commenced early in Jeffersons first term. Madisons status in the party was damaged by his association with the embargo, which was unpopular throughout the country and especially in the Northeast. With the Federalists collapsing as a national party after 1800, the chief opposition to Madisons candidacy came from other members of the Democratic-Republican Party. Madison became the target of attacks from Congressman , a leader of a faction of the party known as the . Randolph recruited James Monroe, who had felt betrayed by the administrations rejection of the proposed with Britain, to challenge Madison for leadership of the party. Many Northerners, meanwhile, hoped that Vice President could unseat Madison as Jeffersons successor. Despite this opposition, Madison won his partys presidential nomination at the January 1808 . The Federalist Party mustered little strength outside New England, and Madison easily defeated Federalist candidate . At a height of only five feet, four inches , and never weighing more than 100 pounds , Madison became the most diminutive president.

Recommended Reading: How Many Seats Do Republicans Need To Keep The House

Early Life And Education

James Madison, Jr. was born on March 16, 1751 ) at near in the , to and Nelly Conway Madison. His family had lived in Virginia since the mid-1600s. Madison grew up as the oldest of twelve children, with seven brothers and four sisters, though only six lived to adulthood. His father was a who grew up on a , then called , which he had inherited upon reaching adulthood. With an estimated 100 and a 5,000 acres plantation, Madison’s father was the largest landowner and a leading citizen in the . Madison’s maternal grandfather was a prominent planter and tobacco merchant. In the early 1760s, the Madison family moved into a newly built house that they named .

From age 11 to 16, Madison studied under Donald Robertson, a Scottish instructor who served as a tutor for several prominent planter families in the South. Madison learned , , and modern and classical languageshe became exceptionally proficient in . At age 16, Madison returned to Montpelier, where he studied under the Reverend Thomas Martin to prepare for college. Unlike most college-bound Virginians of his day, Madison did not attend the , where the lowland climate thought to be more likely to harbor infectious disease might have strained his delicate health. Instead, in 1769, he enrolled as an undergraduate at .

Where Do Democrats And Republicans Stand On The Issue Of Healthcare

Why there’s no Republican primary in South Carolina

The chasm between the parties approach to providing healthcare to Americans couldnt be more vast. Simply put, Democrats have had some form of healthcare reform on their agenda for nearly a century. Republicans not so much. They feel that the status quo is just fine. At the core is a philosophical disagreement about the role of government. Democrats believe that government should be responsible for the people in some ways, and Republicans believe that the less government, the better. In the current climate, this boils down to Democrats wanting to retain, improve, and expand the ACA, and Republicans working overtime to repeal it with no replacement.

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Say Republicans Are The Dumbest

Republicans And Democrats Have Different Views About Compromising With The Other Party

Overall, Republicans are divided over whether Donald Trump should focus on finding common ground with Democrats, even if that means giving up some things Republicans want, or pushing hard for GOP policies, even if it means less gets done. While 53% of Republicans say Trump should push hard for the partys policies, 45% say its more important for the president to find common ground with Democrats.

However, politically attentive Republicans broadly oppose Trump seeking compromise with Democrats even if it means giving up some things Republicans want. Just 39% of Republicans who follow government and public affairs most of the time say it is more important for Trump to find common ground with Democrats; 61% say he should push hard for GOP policies. Opinion is more evenly divided among less politically attentive Republicans.

Democrats, who were asked a hypothetical version of the question about the partys 2020 presidential candidates, are more open to potential compromise with Republicans. About six-in-ten Democrats say it is more important for a candidate, if elected, to find common ground with Republicans even if it means giving up things Democrats want.

There are no differences in these views among Democrats based on political attentiveness. But liberal Democrats are less likely than conservative and moderate Democrats to say it is more important for a candidate to seek compromises with Republicans.

[americanlibertypac]

Alabama Special Election GOP Primary Goes to September Runoff

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (cc by-sa 2.0)

Two Republicans, Sen. Luther Strange, R-Ala., and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, will compete in a runoff election in September after failing to garner 50 percent of the vote in Alabama’s special election to fill the seat of now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The winner of the GOP runoff, which will be Sept. 26, will then face Democrat Doug Jones, who won the Democratic primary Tuesday, in the general election Dec. 12.

The contenders in Tuesday’s primary included three Republican frontrunners—Strange, Moore, and Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala.—and seven Democrats.

Strange was appointed Feb. 9 to the Alabama seat vacated when the Senate confirmed one of its own, Sessions, as attorney general.

Strange, who received President Donald Trump’s endorsement, garnered 31.9 percent of the vote with 78 percent of the precincts reporting

“I love the people of Alabama and I hope you go out and vote for Luther Strange for Senate,” Trump said in a robocall for Strange, adding:

It is so important that you do … I need Luther to help us out. … He is helping me in the Senate, he is going to get the tax cuts for us, he’s doing a lot of things for the people of Alabama.

A political strategist told The Daily Signal that the most surprising part of the Alabama race so far was Trump coming out in support of Strange.

“I think the most fascinating thing out of all of this is just Trump’s endorsement of Strange,” the strategist said, adding:

Alabama is one of the Trumpiest states in the union and when Trump started bashing Jeff Sessions, I think that really soured a lot of people from the state and then after that talk radio, Mark Levin, a lot of people really conditioned Republican voters that Mo Brooks was Trump’s guy and that Luther Strange was the bad guy.

When you add to that the $3 million that [Senate Majority Leader MItch] McConnell has spent from his super PAC bashing Mo Brooks, it just makes for weird dynamics in this race.

In November, Trump won Alabama with 62 percent of the vote.

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, also told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that the Strange endorsement was not expected.

“I think that most people were just surprised by the endorsement, especially when the president has been also fighting Leader McConnell at the same time,” Martin said.

Moore, who came in with 39.6 percent of the vote with 78 percent of the precincts reporting, was suspended from his post in 2003 for “refusing federal court orders to take down a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building,” ABC News reported.

He was reelected as Alabama chief justice in 2013 but removed from the post in 2016 after “ordering other judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses,” ABC reported.

Moore ran on a platform that included support for limited government, immigration reform, a border wall, energy independence, and the military.

AL.com reported that Moore received over 50 endorsements from religious leaders throughout Alabama.

“We have the opportunity this Tuesday, August 15, to send a man to Washington who shares our convictions, will fight for morality, and will restore integrity in the halls of Congress,” the leaders wrote in a letter. “That man is Judge Roy Moore.”

Brooks, who came in with 20.3 percent of the vote with 78 percent of the precincts reporting, has represented Alabama’s 5th District since 2011. He announced May 15 that he would be running for Sessions’ seat.

The Alabama congressman ran on a platform that included calls to “drain the swamp” and repeal Obamacare, and support for Second Amendment rights.

Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund endorsed Brooks, saying that he was the best choice to represent Alabama in the Senate.

“Mo Brooks has been a fearless leader and a fighter,” Martin, chairman of the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, said in a statement, adding:

He has fought to secure our borders and strengthen enforcement against illegal immigration; he has been a strong defender of the Second Amendment; he has championed our efforts to fully repeal Obamacare and return us to health care freedom; and he has fought for trade and tax policies necessary to defend and grow good American jobs.

Martin told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that voters are most concerned with sending a principled leader to Washington to represent their state.

“I think that the big thing is that people in Alabama see it as an opportunity to choose their next senator,” Martin said, adding:

We’ve just made sure that people in Alabama know who Mo Brooks is, because we have gotten to know him in the fights that he has taken on in the House, and we want to make sure that other voters in Alabama understand who he is before they make their decision for who they will vote.

The Democrat frontrunners, according to Politico, were Robert Kennedy Jr., a Navy veteran and businessman, and Jones, a former U.S. attorney.

Kennedy ran on a platform that included support for affordable health care, fiscal responsibility, and environmental stewardship.

Jones, who served as attorney general from 1997–2001 for the Northern District of Alabama, received the endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a robocall released Thursday for Jones, Biden said Jones would “fight for you and your families in the Senate—for a higher minimum wage, for fair, affordable health care, for good schools for all our kids,” AL.com reported.

Report by The Daily Signal’s Rachel Del Guidice. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

[justsomeantifas]

Here’s your dose of “What the Fuck Is Going On” News (2/27/2017 - 2/28/2017 Edition)

Trump announced yesterday that he is seeking a "historical increase" in military spending, hoping to book Pentagon spending by $54 billion. The cost of this will be funded through cuts elsewhere in the government, which will include a large reduction in foreign aid. Trump claims that this buildup in the military is needed because it's depleted in a time we need it most. In reality, our military is one of the most powerful in the world and the U.S. spends far more than any other country on defense. (source)

Ken Blackwell, who serves as Trump's domestic policy chairman confirmed that a "religious freedom" executive order is still coming. A draft of the order was leaked a few weeks ago that would allow exemptions for those who oppose same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, trans identity, etc. Blackwell expressed his vision for the bill where he hopes that religious people will no longer be forced to do business with LGBTQ people, a group he doesn't think is a class that is discriminated against. (source)

The Trump administration plans to abandon the federal government's opposition to Texas' voter ID laws, which are considered some of the toughest in the country. Voter rights activists have long opposed this law due to the ways it disenfranchises voters, mainly those with disabilities, minorities, and those in poverty. This should come as no surprise due to Attorney General Jeff Sessions being in favor of such laws. (source)

Yesterday the Senate confirmed billionaire investor Wilbur Ross as Trump's commerce secretary. Ross is now the second member of Trump's Cabinet who was deeply involved in companies that contributed to the housing crisis, joining Steven Mnuchin. He was invested and involved in two companies who were involved in illegal foreclosure practices. (source)

Another executive order was signed today that will revamp or rescind a rule that defined the rivers, streams and wetlands that are protected by the Clean Water Act. The executive order has no immediate legal effect, but instructs the new EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to begin repealing and rewriting the sweeping rule that is designed to protect American waterways from pollution. (source)

Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). LaPierre talked about the ban on Trump's executive order that barred travel from seven Muslim-majority countries where he said it was "a form of violence against our constitutional system." He then went on to tell the audience where he encouraged "full force of American freedom guns" against anarchists, Marxists, communists, socialists and other left-wingers. (source)

House Republicans shot down an effort to make Trump's tax returns public and show if he’s hiding any more conflicts of interest. The House voted almost entirely on the party line and rejected the effort. (source)

The White House is expected to investigate the death of Navy SEAL, William Owens, who died in the Yemen raid last month. Owens father has been outspoken against Trump using his son's death to deflect criticism on the raid. Trump went on Fox and Friends this morning where he talked about Owens further and removed himself from the responsibility. He continually cited that "they" wanted the mission, "they" started the mission, and "they" were responsible for Owens’ death. (source)

(Note: this post along with the following are citing Trump interview with Fox and Friends this morning, the transcript can be found here. In the Fox and Friends interview, Trump also said that he believes Obama and his people are responsible for the White House leaks. “I think that President Obama is behind it, because his people are certainly behind it.” Trump offered no proof to these accusations.

Trump was asked about the jobs he has yet to appoint and he responded that he will not be appointing people to certain positions because "they're unnecessary to have." The interviews on Fox and Friends were surprised by the revelation because Trump has not announced that he's cutting the jobs of those he's supposed to appoint.

They asked Trump about his announcement that he is skipping the White House Correspondents dinner. The administration previously put out that Trump wasn't attending because he is "too busy running the country" to waste his time with this, however Trump provided a different answer this morning. He said that it has to do with him not being treated "properly" by the media.

Jeff Sessions announced that the DoJ will stop allocating money to lawsuits against police departments. He said they will revamp the DoJ mission in an attempt to reverse the suffering morale of law enforcement, which, "as a whole has been unfairly maligned and blamed for the unacceptable deeds of a few bad actors." Sessions also stated that he doesn't know how the DoJ will handle the recent Chicago probe that revealed civil rights violations stating that the reports are "anecdotal" and "not scientifically based." He then went on to say he DID NOT EVEN READ THE REPORTS. (source)

Jeff Sessions also made comments yesterday about his desire to crack down on states who legalized marijuana. He said that it's "an unhealthy practice" and "we're seeing a real violence" from those who use it. (source)

And now your daily reminder that: Flint, Michigan still doesn’t have clean water. Standing Rock still needs your support. The American infrastructure report card still averages poorly with the rating of a “D+” On 2/26 another Jewish cemetery was attacked in an act of anti-Semitic vandalism, here is their donations page.

[leftpress]

It’s Time for Anarchists to Pick Up A Gun

From The Conjure House

Imagine for a moment you’re at a bar and there’s an immigrant in front of you.

He’s quiet, but not antisocial, casually dressed but not sloppy. He seems just like anybody else except he isn’t. What you don’t know is he’s been working as an aviation programs engineer and even helped design fly-by-wire planes, in which manual controls are entirely replaced by computers. Smart guy, very talented, “high energy” as Il Duce might say; a success story from India and right out of American mythology.

Now, behind him, a new sound; old, fearful, you hear a hellish cry: “GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!”

Who the fuck was that? There appears to be a bit of a scuffle in the back, some guy hassling the immigrant you were just studying, but the bar manager seems to take care of it. The man, who appears to be just some old white dude, looks pissed. There’s something about him, but you can’t seem to place it. The man leaves, but in a few minutes comes back through the door. Perhaps he left something?

He shoots 3 people, two of them Indians who he mistakenly took for Muslims.

Maybe you’re at a protest this time, holding your sign and feeling the electric current of hundreds of other bodies joined in solidarity. A man emerges from the crowd, egging you on to hit him. He spits at you like a diseased raccoon and curses like a fucking sailor. Maybe he’s drunk you figure, or at least too high to really know what’s going on. Someone else pushes him away.

He pulls out a pistol and shoots them. He’ll only be charged with assault.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We’re not even a full year into the reign of a new emperor and already the political climate has become practically poisonous, a vile and noxious cloud not only choking the most at risk in our communities but the people seeking to defend them. People have called for Antifa to be declared a terrorist organization; state governments are writing bills that allow protesters to be run over and have their property stolen from them.

It’s a situation not unlike the one faced by French Illegalists at the turn of the century:

“Against us, all arms are good; we are in an enemy camp, surrounded, harassed. The bosses, judges, soldiers, cops unite to bring us down.”

To be a thinking person in this country of barbarians is to be a criminal and with ever-increasing fervor the tribes loyal to the new Emperor aim to make war upon us. There are millions of people sitting in front of televisions as I type these words that would see nothing wrong with a few hundred lives sacrificed every year to “keep people in line” and you can be sure that folks like you and I will be among them. The cops don’t stop them, they exchange racist texts with them; they console men who kill unarmed black children and tell them what they did was just.

To be an Anarchist, a Communist, an Anti-Capitalist or Intersectional Insurgent is to be potentially marked for death. This is not a metaphor. This is real life.

If you roamed the streets of Syria with nothing but a baseball bat you’d be thought to be suicidal; if your “war against the State” consisted of nothing but flames and gasoline every fire station in the country would be well enough equipped to handle even your most daring of raids.

The people who overwhelmingly support the policies and politicians that want to see you stuffed into a coffin are getting rather shooty as of late. I ask a simple question: do you have the tools to protect not only yourself but the people you care about?

The Great Misfortune

Let’s not kid ourselves: “radicals” are about as far from “revolutionaries” as turkeys are from the T-rex. Somewhere along the line the Left stopped being dangerous and almost went extinct. After the IWW was broken in the 30’s and Labor’s power was smashed, after the ALF-CIO denounced communists and dropping acid was a stand in for revolution, the only place you could find the same current that scared the living piss out of emperors and presidents became smoke-filled college dorms or momentary marches down half-way empty streets. In essence the Left’s ideas about human liberation from the chains of capital were so heavily hunted in the physical world it ran back into our heads; like Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers the Left was thought to be extinct, the sight of a Hammer and Sickle more like the discovery of a dinosaur bone that any kind of political statement.

But times ain’t what they used to be.

Enraged by Trump’s actions and betrayed by the Democrats, the specter of radicalism has returned like an angry ghost hellbent on revenge. Millennials are tired of capitalism yet Bernie’s “political revolution” failed to deliver on anything worthwhile. Non-violence has shown itself as only a great way to get arrested.

Yes, the militant Left seems to be emerging from the ground like cicadas in the Florida summer, hisses and noises slowly building to an unshakable chorus. Signs from the previous generation still remain on the still wet wings of these new militants however. Black Bloc is back but we’re still battling over protests, people joined arm in arm around buildings are generally just a nuisance and not a blockade.

The Anarchists and Militants of all stripes have become neutered, putting us in a dangerous predicament not faced in other countries. Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to be members of a gun-owning household and about six-in-ten gun household members (64%) say they “often feel proud to be American”; roughly half of all the guns in this country are possessed by just 3 percent of American adults; many of the cheapest firearms to produce (ones with open bolt actions) are specifically banned under the NFA and the Hughes Amendment, effectively keeping self-protection out of the hands of the working class.

This is not Europe, this is the United States of fucking America, a morose fiefdom where people can walk into a goddamned Starbucks with 30 rounds of armor-piercing bullets.

What this amounts to is a tangled web of dark implications too dire to think about, a hidden threat of wealthy and well-to-do patriots fully armed and very capable of destroying any gains a revolutionary movement might make in a matter days. They can afford to laugh at riots because they know when the chips are down any effective means of self-defense are firmly in the hands of one class and one ideology.

There is no specter haunting any continent besides the FAI and even then only in small spontaneous camps. Cops and Nazis alike(but I repeat myself) have stormed protests and proceeded to beat the shit out of whoever they like because they pose no threat to the ones doing the beating. Police still want to go home at the end of the day; the minute they are faced with somebody more than capable of inflicting even worse harm they can commit they suddenly become negotiators and peacemakers. Recall the inbreds at the Malthur Wildlife Reserve were treated like honorable enemies because they had fully automatic weapons that could slice a pig up in a matter of seconds.

Recall also they were all aquitted by juries and served almost no jail time.

Compare that with the protests at Standing Rock, where State forces have literally blown people’s arms off without any repercussions besides being prayed at. The camp, now in shambles, is done. The DAPL will be built, the people have failed, and all they have to show for it are bruises and injuries.

But what if the cops hadn’t been so eager to permanently maim protesters, or rush into camps? What if they had been afraid? What if Anarchism and Anti-Capitalists really were something to be afraid of again?

What if the resistance was armed?

The God That Lied

Source: happinessforall.files.wordpress.com

Modern protesting, a hold over from liberalism, assumes a few things:

The people in power care about what their livestock have to say.

There is some imaginary field surrounding all of us called “human rights” that these people feel morally obligated to respect.

The Enemy can be persuaded or guilted into giving up all its power to form some grand utopian cabal that spans the globe without any violence.

These ideas are ridiculous, some religious fantasy stillbirth from the 1960’s dragged around and paraded at every “demonstration” as if they were some patchouli-soaked Christ-child sent to heal us. It’s all lies. All of it. Just ask any black person.

These concepts are nothing more than implanted fictions given to you by the State to keep you docile and obedient, and were recognized as such one hundred years ago. Do bosses care about the food or shelter of the workers they fire? Do the police wonder if someone’s “rights” have been violated when they beat them with batons or shoot them on sight? They scream to you about non-violence while they steal almost every dollar you generate with the threat of force and starvation looming above you.

Rights are a fiction, a spook, and the sooner you realize the only “rights” you have are those you are willing to enforce the sooner you can join the rest of the planet in what we call life.

Enzo Martucci wrote:

“The freedom of an individual ends where his power ends. If I want, and my power permits, I can command others. But in this case the power exercised over them is not authority because they are not bound to recognize and respect it. In fact, if they would rebel and use their power to impede my attempt at domination then all would remain free without anyone threatening to lord it over them.”

Anarchism has in effect relied on coercion: we will not work unless you do this, we will not stop rioting unless you give us this.

We can impede power plenty of ways, and lord knows radicals have learned an assortment, yet we never seem to make the idea of attempting domination a dangerous one. We walk the streets naked everyday with the sincere hope in our hearts that our weakness be respected as if our frailty was a virtue.

We protest laws that allow people to run us over and smash our skulls underneath one-thousand pounds of steel; we beg that the same people smashing us with batons eventually respect us; we don’t demand dignity, we whimper for permission to be treated as if we had any.

Is this the Anarchism we want, a tradition of asking to be human rather than demanding it? The majority of what passes for “direct action” nowadays is nothing more than calling upon the Enemy to be a better ruler instead of making ourselves ungovernable.

This tactic has never worked and the idea that any people, themselves surrounded by violent men and women defending imaginary lines carved from the corpses of millions, would believe them speaks more to strength of mass hallucination than any matters of politics.

As I write this a cop has pulled somebody over outside my window, his flashing lights a silent roar that he has caught his prey. If he does not forcibly detain his victim he will at least rob her to pay for the use of his protection racket. We will drive by, even if he beats or punches this young woman with sandy blonde hair because we are too weak to live without him.

If he killed her right now what would happen? Why shouldn’t he? What’s he got to lose? What would he even risk if he spread her brain matter everywhere in an orgy of foaming neurons and shark tank adrenaline? Nothing from her, nothing from the community around her. The slave cabins will remain quiet and after the protests are over he’ll be right back on the job.

Because he, and his entire department know they have nothing to fear. That we rely on them.

Pick Up YOUR Weapons and Declare YOUR War

Source: Pinhouse. Patch available for purchase here.

I’ll say it plainly: an armed person is in command of themselves. They can not only defend themselves and thus be free from the “protection” of the police but move to enforce their own values on the world around them. When a cop tells you to take off a shirt he finds offensive(say, a Black Lives Matter t-shirt) you obey because the mere threat of violence and death is enough to make you comply. You are not sizing up the cop and wondering if you can out box him or pin him to the ground because you know no amount of muscle will stop a 9mm hollow point from ripping through your face like chemotherapy in a cancer patient.

There is no reason Anarchists can’t do the same.

Klansmen get awful scared at the sight of a loaded rifle, Nazis seem less likely to flex their muscle when they know a .357 is set to demolish in 2 seconds what took 2 years to build. To point a gun at a cop is a death sentence(unless you’re white of course), yet the mere idea that a shootout could occur is often enough to keep them on their best behavior.

Robert F. Williams was a classic example of this tactic being put into action.

“Robert F. Williams would become the leader of the Mabel, NC chapter of the NAACP and organized a black militia to fight against the Klan, much to the dislike of moderates in the Civil Rights movement. Williams was a WWII veteran and shared the skills he accumulated with his fellows to fight back against the violence of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Councils. This was shown to have quite a high level of efficacy; by simply being armed black militias were able to scare Klansmen out of action.”

Where the FUCK did THAT kind of politics go? When did we start asking for anything instead of taking it? Why have we let the enemy dictate what is acceptable for us? Why have we huddled together in weakness when we can proudly stand under our own authority?

“Revolution and insurrection,” said Max Stirner, “must not be looked upon as synonymous…The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on ‘institutions.’”

When we begin to make ourselves free we pave the way for the freedom of others.

Guns may be the great leveler: they don’t have to be expensive, they don’t have to be fancy and they can be wielded by the sick or healthy, young or old, by any sex or gender. Anyone can use them to arrange the world around them.

Firearms are Anarchism in action, a tool that instantly frees you from relying on hierarchical authority. YOU can repel a burglary, YOU can stop a rape, YOU can keep racist scum from even showing their face in the neighborhood either individually or collectively; no authority is involved, no 911 to call or infrastructure to uphold, effectively making the State obsolete without relying on the spooks of “rights” or “laws” or some religious belief that “deep down everybody is good.”

When it becomes clear that threatening the life of an Anarchist by driving a car through a protest or pulling a gun at a rally becomes potentially deadly the aggravation will end. When police know they risk much more than a two-week paid vacation when they rampage through a neighborhood the harassment will cease. When it becomes clear that a rapist won’t live long enough to beg for mercy from a sympathetic judge the patriarchy will retreat.

Every anarchist with a gun in her hand is Anarchism made real, a potent force capable of holding the world accountable and demanding autonomy, the same world currently hidden behind walls, fences, badges, and uniforms that you and I have built for generation upon generation with our bare hands only to have it stolen from us by the diktats of the “markets” and the owners who treat us like cattle!

Well comrades, will you continue to let them steal from you? Will you continue to live as a peaceful and pacifist herd? Will you continue to let the State and the bourgeoisie steal your value, your time, your bodies, and your lives all while they ransom your safety for continued obedience?

Or will you begin to steal them back, one by one…

…at gun point?

If you can steal no other property from the State…

…at least steal back yourself.

Tags: 

egoist

communist

guns

category: 

Essays

Get your Latest News From The Leftist Front on LeftPress.tk → Help Us Gather News (Click for Details) ← From: http://anarchistnews.org/content/it%E2%80%99s-time-anarchists-pick-gun via anarchistnews.org

[numinous-queer]

Judge halts deportations as refugee ban causes worldwide furor

The Washington Post

A federal judge in New York blocked deportations nationwide late Saturday of those detained on entry to the United States after an executive order from President Trump targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to stop the deportations after determining that the risk of injury to those detained by being returned to their home countries necessitated the decision.

Minutes after the judge’s ruling in New York, another came in Alexandria when U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order to block for seven days the removal of any green-card holders being detained at Dulles International Airport. Brinkema’s action also ordered that lawyers have access to those held there because of the ban.

Trump’s order reverberated across the world Saturday, making it increasingly clear that the measure he had promised during his presidential campaign was casting a wider net than even his opponents had feared.

Confusion and concern among immigrant advocates mounted throughout the day as travelers from the Middle East were detained at U.S. airports or sent home. A lawsuit filed on behalf of two Iraqi men challenged Trump’s executive action, which was signed Friday and initially cast as applying to refugees and migrants.

But as the day progressed, administration officials confirmed that the sweeping order also targeted U.S. legal residents from the named countries — green-card holders — who were abroad when it was signed. Also subject to being barred entry into the United States are dual nationals, or people born in one of the seven countries who hold passports even from U.S. allies, such as the United Kingdom.

The virtually unprecedented measures triggered harsh reactions from not only Democrats and others who typically advocate for immigrants but also key sectors of the U.S. business community. Leading technology companies recalled scores of overseas employees and sharply criticized the president. Legal experts forecast a wave of litigation over the order, calling it unconstitutional. Lawyers and advocates for immigrants are advising them to seek asylum in Canada.

Yet Trump, who centered his campaign in part on his vow to crack down on illegal immigrants and impose what became known as his “Muslim ban,’’ was unbowed. As White House officials insisted that the measure strengthens national security, the president stood squarely behind it.

“It’s not a Muslim ban, but we were totally prepared,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “You see it at the airports, you see it all over. It’s working out very nicely, and we’re going to have a very, very strict ban, and we’re going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years.”

In New York, Donnelly seemed to have little patience for the government’s arguments, which focused heavily on the fact that the two defendants named in the lawsuit had already been released.

Donnelly noted that those detained were suffering mostly from the bad fortune of traveling while the ban went into effect. “Our own government presumably approved their entry to the country,” she said at one point, noting that, had it been two days prior, those detained would have been granted admission without question.

Photos from the scene of protest at New York’s JFK airport against Trump’s executive order halting refu­gee admissions  (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Entry to the United States is being refused to legal residents, including green-card holders, from seven mostly Muslim countries who were abroad when the executive order was signed Friday by the president, and some travelers were detained at U.S. airports. 

During the hearing, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt informed the court that he had received word of a deportation to Syria, scheduled within the hour. That prompted Donnelly to ask if the government could assure that the person would not suffer irreparable harm. Receiving no such assurance, she granted the stay to the broad group included in the ACLU’s request.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official had no comment about the rulings late Saturday and said the department was consulting with its lawyers.

The official said enforcement of the president’s order on Saturday had created minimal disruption, given that only a small number of the several hundred thousand travelers arriving at U.S. airports daily had been affected.

Nationwide, he said, 109 people had been denied entry into the United States. All had been in transit when Trump signed the order, and some had already departed the United States on flights by late Saturday while others were still being detained awaiting flights. Also, 173 people had not been allowed to board U.S.-bound planes at foreign airports.

The official said that officers doing case-by-case reviews had granted 81 waivers so far to green-card holders.

DHS began implementing the president’s order immediately after he signed it, according to the official. He declined to say whether the department had an operational plan ready at that time.

In New York, when news of the decision to block the deportations reached the crowd outside the courthouse, a roar of approval went up. For some time after, hundreds of people chanted and danced along with a drum circle. “Get up! Get down! New York is an immigrant town,” the crowd said. The diverse group of mostly young people continued to grow despite the cold weather. “No hate! No bigotry! No Muslim registry.”

Jonah Baum, 11, was at the protest with his mother, Terri Gerstein, 48. Asked why he thought it was important to come, Baum said, “It's so bad what he's been doing to this country. I felt like I needed to do something about it.” Baum's grandfather was a Jewish refugee from Germany.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted late Saturday, “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.”

Though several congressional Republicans denounced the order, the majority remained silent, and a few voiced crucial support — including, most prominently, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who had rejected Trump’s anti-Muslim proposals during the campaign. “This is not a religious test, and it is not a ban on people of any religion,’’ Ryan said Saturday. “This order does not affect the vast majority of Muslims in the world.”

The president’s order, signed Friday, suspends admission to the United States of all refugees for 120 days and bars for 90 days the entry of any citizen from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. That list excludes several majority-Muslim nations — notably Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia — where the Trump Organization, now run by the president’s adult sons, is active and which in some cases have also faced troublesome issues with terrorism.

According to the text of the order, the restriction applies to countries that have already been excluded from programs allowing people to travel to the United States without a visa because of terrorism concerns. Hewing closely to nations already named as terrorism concerns elsewhere in law might have allowed the White House to avoid angering powerful and wealthy majority-Muslim allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Amid widespread confusion on Saturday about how the order will be enforced, some administration officials acknowledged that its rollout had been chaotic. Officials tried to reassure travelers and their families, pointing out that green-card holders in the United States will not be affected and noting that the DHS is allowed to grant waivers to those individuals and others deemed to not pose a security threat. It can take years for someone to become a green-card holder, or lawful permanent resident authorized to permanently live and work in the country.

“If you’ve been living in the United States for 15 years and you own a business and your family is here, will you be granted a waiver? I’m assuming yes, but we are working that out,’’ said one official, who could not be more specific because details remained so cloudy. A senior White House official later said that waivers will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that green-card holders in the United States will have to meet with a consular officer before leaving the country.

But officials made clear that the federal officers detaining refugees and migrants with valid U.S. visas and restricting them from entering the country were following orders handed down by top DHS officials, at the White House’s behest.

The order drew outrage from a range of activist and advocates for Muslims, Arabs and immigrants. More than 4,000 academics from universities nationwide signed a statement of opposition and voiced concern the ban would become permanent. They described it as discriminatory and “inhumane, ineffective and un-American.”

The executive action has caused “complete chaos” and torn apart families, said Abed Ayoub, legal and policy director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

At Dulles, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) addressed more than 100 people protesting Trump’s order. He said: “I remind everybody we are a land of immigrants … Discriminatory tactics breed hatred.’’

In New York, lawyers for two Iraqi men detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport — one of whom served the U.S. military mission in Iraq — filed a federal lawsuit challenging the order as unconstitutional.

[Read the complaint]

One of the men, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, was released Saturday afternoon without explanation from federal officials. “This is the humanity, this is the soul of America,’’ he told reporters. “This is what pushed me to move, to leave my country and come here … America is the land of freedom — the land of freedom, the land of the right.’’

Other advocates promised further legal challenges. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) denounced the order and said it would file a lawsuit challenging it as unconstitutional.

In a conference call with reporters, immigration lawyers and advocates said Trump’s order violated the Constitution, along with U.S. and international laws that guarantee migrants the right to apply for asylum at the border and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which forbids discrimination in the issuance of visas based on race, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower immigration levels, praised Trump.

“It’s a prudent measure,” he said. “It’s not the end of the world. It’s not the Statue of Liberty crying. The reaction has been hyperbolic.”

At Dulles, shortly after 9 p.m., about 200 protesters continued to sing, chant and cheer international passengers as they arrived. They chanted "let them in" and sang, "This land is our land, this land is your land."

About three dozen volunteer lawyers gathered nearby in the international arrivals area. Cheers erupted as one of the lawyers announced that the ACLU had been granted a national stay in New York.

Dan Press, a Washington area bankruptcy lawyer volunteering at the airport, then announced Brinkema’s temporary restraining order that granted lawyers access to people being held at Dulles and prevented lawful permanent residents — people with green cards — from being removed.

“You guys get ready!” Press told the throng of lawyers. “Form teams to go back!”

By 9:45 p.m., the lawyers were still waiting to get down the long hallway guarded by three police officers that would take them to the area where a reported 50 to 60 people — mostly people from the seven countries who also have green cards — have been held since earlier this afternoon.

Hassan Ahmad, a Northern Virginia immigration lawyer, said he knew of a 71-year-old Iranian man with a green card who had been held at Dulles with his wife since they arrived at 3:45 p.m. on a flight from Tehran via Frankfurt. Ahmad said the man's family was worried because he had a heart condition, and they had been unable to reach him by cellphone.

Ahmad and his colleague, Humza Kazmi, said they consider their client to be detained.

“He's not free to go,” Ahmad said.

Ahmad said both airport police and Border Protection officers had refused to let them see their pro bono client.

Ahmad said another client — an Iraqi couple with two children — had been released at Dulles after 4 1/2 hours. The father had a green card under a program for Iraqi citizens who had assisted the U.S. military as translators. The man's wife and children also had green card as his dependents, he said.

Philip Bump in Brooklyn, Louisa Loveluck in Beirut, and David Nakamura, Philip Rucker, Mike DeBonis, Lori Aratani, Carol Morello and Rachel Weiner in Washington contributed to this report.

SOURCE

[weopenviews]

Donald Trump is calling for his followers to LIBERATE the states from the social-distancing measures that are staving off an even greater coronavirus death toll. Trump’s enforcer, Attorney General Bill Barr, is now poised to support Trump’s call for insurrection by turning to the federal courts—seeded with a legion of newly installed right-wing jurists—to undermine critical public-health protections on his boss’ behalf. If Barr and Trump get their way, the states will soon be “opened up” to the virus, and thus to a massive number of needless deaths. While Trump began openly attacking his own social-distancing guidelines over the past week, Barr has been doing so for some time. During an April 8 interview on Fox News, the AG described the steps belatedly taken to limit spread of the virus as “draconian.” He also said that “after April 30,” the Department of Justice would begin to scrutinize such “restrictions on our liberty” more closely. Republicans Cheer as Trumpist Judge Launches Holy War Against GovernmentDays later, some of the same big-money donors that had funded the Tea Party began fabricating a movement that responded to Trump’s recent tweets by sending small numbers of protesters to mass at various statehouses to decry the public-health regulations that Trump claims are intended to undermine Americans’ constitutional rights.Last Friday, members of a group founded by former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese wrote to Barr, asserting that states are engaged in “rampant abuses of… civil liberties” that raise “serious concerns about violating the basic protections and rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution” and asking the DOJ to “undertake immediate review of all the orders that have been issued by the states and local governments” to protect against the spread of the coronavirus.The federal government virtually never engages in such an intrusive, nationwide review of state and local health regulations, let alone emergency regulations that were imposed at the express request of the president for the purpose of saving lives in the midst of a raging pandemic. Furthermore, Barr is a charter member of the Federalist Society, which supplied the president with the names of many of the young extremist lawyers who Trump and Mitch McConnell have been packing onto the federal judiciary. These conservatives have long claimed to be champions of “states’ rights” and opponents of earlier “activist” judges who, they claimed, were far too willing to interfere with state governance in the name of constitutional and civil rights. Yet there is every reason to believe that Barr, as well as many of the judges Trump has placed on the bench, will enthusiastically comply with the new call to undertake an offensive against states’ emergency health measures.In fact, as the activists noted in their April letter, Barr has already taken to the courts to oppose a local coronavirus health regulation. On April 14, well before the expiration of Trump’s own call for strict social-distancing measures during the “30 days to stop the spread,” the DOJ intervened in a Mississippi case to support a challenge to a municipal regulation barring “drive-in” church services.In the face of the DOJ���s action, along with pressure from the state’s GOP governor, the defendant city relented and allowed the services to proceed. While the danger posed to public health in that case may well in fact have been limited, the message was clear: Instead of supporting state and local efforts to protect citizens from the virus, the federal government is now arrayed to oppose them.The DOJ’s intervention in Mississippi immediately followed a Kentucky case in which a newly installed judge, who Trump has already nominated for a seat on the elite D.C .Court of Appeals, grandstanded by issuing an emergency ruling against a Louisville prohibition on a church’s worship practices. The judge took the time to write a lengthy opinion containing an impassioned screed against the city’s purported intrusions upon religious freedom, but not to hear evidence from the city before issuing his emergency order. As the city later demonstrated, the church actually had a recent history of flaunting social-distancing practices and endangering its parishioners.Then on Saturday, yet another recent Trump appointee to the federal bench took a further whack at a critical public-health regulation, issuing an emergency order nullifying the application of Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s ban on gatherings of more than 10 people at church services. The order came after Kansas’ own Supreme Court had declined to grant similar relief at the request of representatives of the state’s GOP-controlled legislature. The federal judge’s order recited a set of safety precautions that the church claimed it would follow, but offered no explanation for the judge’s choice to override the existing rules which—as explained—were grounded in guidance offered by Trump’s own public-health professionals. Both rulings came after religious gatherings across the country have already served as deadly vectors for the spread of the coronavirus—and as Trumpist lawmakers are planning further judicial interventions of their own. The speaker of Wisconsin’s state assembly—last seen dressed in full hospital garb telling voters they were perfectly safe standing to cast ballots in an election the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court, outrageously refused to delay—is now threatening to bring a lawsuit to nullify that state’s stay-at-home rules. And GOP legislators in other states are following Trump’s and Barr’s calls by threatening similar litigation and other challenges, in some cases only days after authorizing their governors to take emergency measures to protect the public from the pandemic.The spectacle of having judges second-guessing the determinations of state health professionals serves Barr and Trump’s broader goal: to undermine the legitimacy and authority of governors, some of them Democrats in swing states, who have received far more robust public support for their effective responses to the pandemic than Trump has for his catastrophically late efforts. Barr’s efforts now to undermine the authority of governors is of a piece with his past work undermining the legitimacy of his own Justice Department, as well as the nation’s intelligence community and diplomatic corps, to help Trump escape the consequences of his criminal conduct during Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and then his scheme to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of his 2020 rival, Joe Biden. Yet while Barr’s past efforts to shred public confidence in governmental institutions have done a great deal of damage to the nation, the attorney general’s latest effort to misuse the authority of the law, and of the federal courts, to help Trump out of a political jam is likely to have more immediate, and fatal, consequences.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/3asiX6w

[morningusa]

Donald Trump is calling for his followers to LIBERATE the states from the social-distancing measures that are staving off an even greater coronavirus death toll. Trump’s enforcer, Attorney General Bill Barr, is now poised to support Trump’s call for insurrection by turning to the federal courts—seeded with a legion of newly installed right-wing jurists—to undermine critical public-health protections on his boss’ behalf. If Barr and Trump get their way, the states will soon be “opened up” to the virus, and thus to a massive number of needless deaths. While Trump began openly attacking his own social-distancing guidelines over the past week, Barr has been doing so for some time. During an April 8 interview on Fox News, the AG described the steps belatedly taken to limit spread of the virus as “draconian.” He also said that “after April 30,” the Department of Justice would begin to scrutinize such “restrictions on our liberty” more closely. Republicans Cheer as Trumpist Judge Launches Holy War Against GovernmentDays later, some of the same big-money donors that had funded the Tea Party began fabricating a movement that responded to Trump’s recent tweets by sending small numbers of protesters to mass at various statehouses to decry the public-health regulations that Trump claims are intended to undermine Americans’ constitutional rights.Last Friday, members of a group founded by former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese wrote to Barr, asserting that states are engaged in “rampant abuses of… civil liberties” that raise “serious concerns about violating the basic protections and rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution” and asking the DOJ to “undertake immediate review of all the orders that have been issued by the states and local governments” to protect against the spread of the coronavirus.The federal government virtually never engages in such an intrusive, nationwide review of state and local health regulations, let alone emergency regulations that were imposed at the express request of the president for the purpose of saving lives in the midst of a raging pandemic. Furthermore, Barr is a charter member of the Federalist Society, which supplied the president with the names of many of the young extremist lawyers who Trump and Mitch McConnell have been packing onto the federal judiciary. These conservatives have long claimed to be champions of “states’ rights” and opponents of earlier “activist” judges who, they claimed, were far too willing to interfere with state governance in the name of constitutional and civil rights. Yet there is every reason to believe that Barr, as well as many of the judges Trump has placed on the bench, will enthusiastically comply with the new call to undertake an offensive against states’ emergency health measures.In fact, as the activists noted in their April letter, Barr has already taken to the courts to oppose a local coronavirus health regulation. On April 14, well before the expiration of Trump’s own call for strict social-distancing measures during the “30 days to stop the spread,” the DOJ intervened in a Mississippi case to support a challenge to a municipal regulation barring “drive-in” church services.In the face of the DOJ’s action, along with pressure from the state’s GOP governor, the defendant city relented and allowed the services to proceed. While the danger posed to public health in that case may well in fact have been limited, the message was clear: Instead of supporting state and local efforts to protect citizens from the virus, the federal government is now arrayed to oppose them.The DOJ’s intervention in Mississippi immediately followed a Kentucky case in which a newly installed judge, who Trump has already nominated for a seat on the elite D.C .Court of Appeals, grandstanded by issuing an emergency ruling against a Louisville prohibition on a church’s worship practices. The judge took the time to write a lengthy opinion containing an impassioned screed against the city’s purported intrusions upon religious freedom, but not to hear evidence from the city before issuing his emergency order. As the city later demonstrated, the church actually had a recent history of flaunting social-distancing practices and endangering its parishioners.Then on Saturday, yet another recent Trump appointee to the federal bench took a further whack at a critical public-health regulation, issuing an emergency order nullifying the application of Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s ban on gatherings of more than 10 people at church services. The order came after Kansas’ own Supreme Court had declined to grant similar relief at the request of representatives of the state’s GOP-controlled legislature. The federal judge’s order recited a set of safety precautions that the church claimed it would follow, but offered no explanation for the judge’s choice to override the existing rules which—as explained—were grounded in guidance offered by Trump’s own public-health professionals. Both rulings came after religious gatherings across the country have already served as deadly vectors for the spread of the coronavirus—and as Trumpist lawmakers are planning further judicial interventions of their own. The speaker of Wisconsin’s state assembly—last seen dressed in full hospital garb telling voters they were perfectly safe standing to cast ballots in an election the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court, outrageously refused to delay—is now threatening to bring a lawsuit to nullify that state’s stay-at-home rules. And GOP legislators in other states are following Trump’s and Barr’s calls by threatening similar litigation and other challenges, in some cases only days after authorizing their governors to take emergency measures to protect the public from the pandemic.The spectacle of having judges second-guessing the determinations of state health professionals serves Barr and Trump’s broader goal: to undermine the legitimacy and authority of governors, some of them Democrats in swing states, who have received far more robust public support for their effective responses to the pandemic than Trump has for his catastrophically late efforts. Barr’s efforts now to undermine the authority of governors is of a piece with his past work undermining the legitimacy of his own Justice Department, as well as the nation’s intelligence community and diplomatic corps, to help Trump escape the consequences of his criminal conduct during Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and then his scheme to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of his 2020 rival, Joe Biden. Yet while Barr’s past efforts to shred public confidence in governmental institutions have done a great deal of damage to the nation, the attorney general’s latest effort to misuse the authority of the law, and of the federal courts, to help Trump out of a political jam is likely to have more immediate, and fatal, consequences.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

[deniscollins]

U.S. Orders Duke and U.N.C. to Recast Tone in Mideast Studies

What would you do if you administered a joint Mideast Studies program between Duke University and University of North Carolina and the U.S. Education Department ordered you to redevelop your program because it did not present enough “positive” imagery of Judaism and Christianity in the region, violating the standards of a federal program that awards funding to international studies and foreign language programs: (1) redevelop your program, or (2) refuse on ground of academic freedom? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

The Education Department has ordered Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to remake the Middle East studies program run jointly by the two schools after concluding that it was offering students a biased curriculum that, among other complaints, did not present enough “positive” imagery of Judaism and Christianity in the region.

In a rare instance of federal intervention in college course content, the department asserted that the universities’ Middle East program violated the standards of a federal program that awards funding to international studies and foreign language programs. The inquiry was part of a far-reaching investigation into the program by the department, which under Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, has become increasingly aggressive in going after perceived anti-Israel bias in higher education.

That focus appears to reflect the views of an agency leadership that includes a civil rights chief, Kenneth L. Marcus, who has made a career of pro-Israel advocacy and has waged a years long campaign to delegitimize and defund Middle East studies programs that he has criticized as rife with anti-Israel bias.

In this case, the department homed in on what officials saw as a program that focused on the region’s Muslim population at the expense of its religious minorities. In the North Carolina program’s outreach to elementary and secondary school students, the department said, there was “a considerable emphasis placed on the understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East.”

In a letter to university officials, the assistant secretary for postsecondary education, Robert King, wrote that programs run by the Duke-U.N.C. Consortium for Middle East Studies appeared to be misaligned with the federal grant they had received. Title VI of the Higher Education Act awards funding to colleges “establishing, strengthening and operating a diverse network of undergraduate foreign language and area or international studies centers and programs.”

The Education Department “believes” the Middle Eastern studies consortium “has failed to carefully distinguish between activities lawfully funded under Title VI and other activities” that are “plainly unqualified for taxpayer support,” Mr. King wrote.

The letter, published this week in the Federal Register, said that the consortium’s records on the number of students it had enrolled in foreign language studies — a cornerstone of the federal grant program — were unclear, and that “it seems clear foreign language instruction and area studies advancing the security and economic stability of the United States have taken ‘a back seat’ to other priorities.”

Mr. King wrote that the department believed other offerings, like a conference focused on “love and desire in modern Iran” and another focused on Middle East film criticism, “have little or no relevance to Title VI.” The department wrote the consortium’s programming also “appears to lack balance.”

The department also criticized the consortium’s teacher training programs for focusing on issues like “unconscious bias, serving L.G.B.T.I.Q. youth in schools, culture and the media, diverse books for the classroom and more.” They said that it had a “startling lack of focus on geography, geopolitical issues, history and language.”

The administration ordered the consortium to submit a revised schedule of events it planned to support and a full list of the courses it offers and the professors working in its Middle East studies program. The department also directed the consortium to demonstrate that it had “effective institutional controls” to stay compliant with the administration’s interpretation of the Higher Education Act. The universities were given until Sept. 22, only days before the department is scheduled to approve funding on Sept. 30.

A spokesman for Duke declined to comment, referring questions to the University of North Carolina. A spokeswoman for the U.N.C. acknowledged receipt of the letter.

“The consortium deeply values its partnership with the Department of Education and has always been strongly committed to complying with the purposes and requirements of the Title VI program,” the university said in a statement. “In keeping with the spirit of this partnership, the consortium is committed to working with the department to provide more information about its programs.”

To advocacy groups enmeshed in academic battles over Israel, the new investigation was not surprising.

Last year, the department reopened a case into anti-Jewish bias at Rutgers University that the Obama administration had closed with no finding of wrongdoing. In reconsidering the case, Mr. Marcus said the Education Department would be using a State Department definition of anti-Semitism that, among other things, labels “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” anti-Jewish bigotry, suggesting that it had been adopted by his office. The Education Department has not adopted that definition.

In June, Ms. DeVos said she had ordered an investigation into whether the Duke-U.N.C. consortium had misused any of the $235,000 it received in Title VI grants, including to sponsor an event in March called “Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics and Possibilities.” Representative George Holding, Republican of North Carolina, had requested that Ms. DeVos investigate whether federal funding was used to host the conference, which constituents had said was rife with “radical anti-Israel bias.”

Mr. Holding said the conference featured active members of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel — known as B.D.S. — and featured panelists who “distorted facts and misrepresented the complex situation in Gaza.” He said a video shown at the conference featured a performer who sang a “brazenly anti-Semitic song.”

But some groups came to the defense of the Middle East studies consortium. Tallie Ben Daniel, the research and education manager at Jewish Voice for Peace, a liberal group that advocates Palestinian rights, said the investigation was the latest attempt by the Trump administration “to enforce a neoconservative agenda onto spaces of academic inquiry and exploration.” She called the consortium’s curriculum “rich and diverse.”

To critics like Ms. Daniel, the targeting of the U.N.C.-Duke program appeared to be a continuation of efforts that predated the Trump administration. A group founded by Mr. Marcus, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, has pressed Education Department and Congress for years to crack down on Middle East studies programs that the center claimed promoted an anti-Israel bias.

But Ms. Elman, the professor at Syracuse, said the department’s scrutiny of the programs was long overdue.

“To get Title VI, you really have to strive for viewpoint diversity,” she said. “This is what our students want. They don’t want to be indoctrinated. They want both sides. It’s possible to do that and still make people uncomfortable.”

Before joining the Education Department, Mr. Marcus had aggressively lobbied for the Higher Education Act to crack down on Middle East studies programs, and criticized both the Education Department and Congress for failing to hold institutions accountable for violating the law’s “diverse perspectives” requirement.

In 2014, he wrote an opinion article that assailed the Title VI program for “being used to support biased and academically worthless programming on college campuses,” leaving students and faculty with opposing views “ostracized and threatened.”

“Aside from their intellectual vapidity,” Mr. Marcus wrote, “many of these programs poison the atmosphere on campus.”

He called on the department to establish a complaint process that would prompt extensive reviews of entire programs like the one being undertaken into U.N.C. and Duke.

[neptunecreek]

EFF Goes to Battle at the California Statehouse: 2017 in Review

In the wake of the 2016 election, California lawmakers quickly adopted the posture of “The Resistance.” For the digital rights community, this presented an opportunity to pursue legislation that had not previously enjoyed much political momentum. As a result, EFF staff found themselves trekking back and forth between San Francisco and Sacramento to testify on everything from surveillance transparency to broadband privacy.  In the end, we checked off a number of victories, but also some defeats, and created more opportunities for next year.

Here’s a selection of the California campaigns EFF launched in 2017. 

Broadband Privacy

%3Ciframe%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FcgW9PACVBq4%3Frel%3D0%26autoplay%3D1%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20gesture%3D%22media%22%20allow%3D%22encrypted-media%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com

Ignoring the anger and opposition by the American public, Congress repealed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that blocked Internet provides (think Cox, Comcast, Time-Warner) from collecting and selling customers’ data without their consent.

California Assemblymember Ed Chau seized the opportunity to restore those rights and partnered with EFF to introduce A.B. 375. The telecom industry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the bill and even went so far as to circulate false information to legislators at the 11th hour. The bill failed to receive a Senate floor vote on the last night of the session. However, the bill remains alive and we’re ready to finish the job in 2018.

Protecting Immigrants and Religious Minorities

Shortly after the election, lawmakers introduced S.B. 54, a compendium bill meant to simultaneously protect immigrants from mass deportation, defend Muslims from being placed on religious registries, and curtail how much unnecessary data is being collected on all Californians by state agencies.  The political process resulted in the bill being split into three, with S.B. 54 continuing to create a firewall between California data and immigration enforcement, while S.B. 31 forbade California data from being used for religious registries, and S.B. 244 enhanced the privacy requirements for state agencies.

After a hard fought battle, S.B. 31 was signed into law, while S.B. 244 died in committee. Ultimately, EFF removed its support for S.B. 54 because the data protections were weakened (although the bill did create new, important measures for immigrant communities). 

A Public Process for Restricting Police Surveillance

%3Ciframe%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2F6Bjje6rRfoQ%3Frel%3D0%26autoplay%3D1%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20gesture%3D%22media%22%20allow%3D%22encrypted-media%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com

 Over the last few years, local communities in the bay area such as Santa Clara County, Oakland, and Berkeley have begun pursuing measures that would require police agencies to seek approval from elected officials before acquiring surveillance technology. S.B. 21 would have instituted that requirement for every local law enforcement agency across the state. Police also would have been required to issue periodic reports on how often the technology was used, and how often it was misused. The bill passed the Senate and two Assembly committees, only to die without a vote in the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee. 

Although the bill failed, the momentum remains. EFF is supporting our local partners in the Electronic Frontier Alliance as they push for similar—if not stronger—ordinances on the local level.

Internet Access for Youth in State Care

EFF lent its technological expertise to a campaign by the Youth Law Center and Assemblymember Mike Gipson to ensure that youth in detention and foster care have access to computers and the Internet. A.B. 811 sailed through both legislative houses and landed on the governor desk. EFF testified in support of the bill when it came before the Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee. 

While Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed A.B. 811, all is not lost. Brown ordered the state’s juvenile detention authorities to draw up a plan to offer Internet access to youth. Furthermore, he indicated he might support a second go at a modified bill in 2018. EFF intends to join YLC and Gipson in this renewed effort to ensure that at-risk youth have access to the digital tools they need to succeed. 

License Plate Privacy

%3Ciframe%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FB9zBqgfIIZI%3Frel%3D0%26autoplay%3D1%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20gesture%3D%22media%22%20allow%3D%22encrypted-media%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com

To combat the scourge of private license plate reader companies that are harvesting and selling our travel data, EFF drafted S.B. 712 to allow drivers to mask their vehicles’ license plates when lawfully parked. Currently, drivers are allowed to cover their entire cars to protect their paint jobs from the elements, so they should also be allowed to cover just a portion of their vehicle to protect their privacy.

Even in an age of bitter enmity between the political parties, S.B. 712 is proof that common ground can still be found. Republican Sen. Joel Anderson introduced the bill, and although it died in committee, it did receive cross-aisle support from some Democrats, such as Sen. Scott Wiener. We hope to pursue this legislation again in 2018.

Gang Database Reform

In 2016, EFF joined a coalition of civil rights and justice reform groups to pass A.B. 2298, a bill that started the process of overhauling California’s discriminatory gang databases. Midway through that effort, the California State Auditor released its investigation, showing that the system was riddled with problems that the original legislation did not anticipate. So this year, the coalition reassembled to support Assemblymember Shirley Weber’s follow-up bill, A.B. 90. 

Gov. Brown signed A.B. 90 in October. The new law mandates audits, creates a new oversight body, and requires policies to be supported by empirical research. 

Publication of Police Policies 

S.B. 345 would have required every law enforcement agency in the state, by default, to publish all their policies and training materials online. This was a landmark bill due to its support by both law enforcement associations and civil liberties organizations, who rarely share common ground on these issues.

Unfortunately, Gov. Brown vetoed the bill.  But he did leave the door open for more narrow reforms in 2018. 

Strengthening the California Public Records Act 

The California Public Records Act is notoriously toothless. If an agency unjustifiably rejects your request, delays the release of records, or requires unreasonable fees for copies, your only option is to take them to court, and even if you win, the agency is only be liable for your legal bills. A.B. 1479 would have allowed a judge to levy fines against agencies that behave badly. 

The legislature sadly balked at the last minute, reducing the bill to a weak pilot program where agencies were required to appoint a central records custodian. EFF pulled its support from the bill, and Gov. Brown vetoed it.

Fake News Fumble

Shortly after the election, policymakers began to worry about how false or exaggerated articles were being circulated over social media. In California, a well-intentioned bill, A.B. 1104, was written so broadly that it would have criminalized any “false or deceptive” information around an election, regardless of whether the statement was hyperbole, poetic license, or common error. EFF launched a Twitter campaign and the bill’s sponsor removed the unconstitutional section of the legislation.

This article is part of our Year In Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2017.

Like what you're reading? Support digital freedom defense today!

from Deeplinks http://ift.tt/2lfBgVl

[oselatra]

If not now, then when?

I remember asking that question after 20 children were murdered at Sandy Hook. Surely, this tragedy would wake us up--get us working to end our gun violence epidemic.

If not now, then when?

I remember asking that question after 20 children were murdered at Sandy Hook. Surely, this tragedy would wake us up--get us working to end our gun violence epidemic. But nothing was done. Fast forward five years and more headlines saying "Deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history," and we have the national tragedy in Las Vegas.

I'm sure the gun lobby will double down; they have proven that profits, not people are important. For decades the NRA has dismantled gun safety regulations across the country with their message of fear — that we can only be safe if we are armed at all times.

I don't think an arms race is the answer.

We need a policy that prohibits gun access to criminals and people suffering from mental illness, and allow research on gun violence as a health issue so we can really shine a light on the problem.

Together, we can make our communities safer and still respect the Second amendment. Contrary to what the NRA says, this isn't a zero sum game. Universal background checks on all gun sales, including sales at gun shows and online would help enforce existing prohibitions and doesn't infringe on anyone's right. This idea is supported by 93 prcent of Americans, including gun owners and NRA members.

Please take action, call your representatives: Tell them now is the time to take a stand against the NRA, and pass common sense gun laws. You can also join Moms Demand Action for Gunsense in America, a grassroots organization standing up to the NRA, made up of volunteers in all states who are tired of seeing the endless gun violence.

Let's start now. When our country is faced with a problem we fix it, we don't throw our hands up and say there's nothing we can do. Thoughts and prayers are needed in times like these, but if we don't take action, we won't escape these times. If not now then when?

Daniel Bishop Conway

From the web in response to the Oct. 9 Arkansas Blog post "Trump can still count on Tom Cotton":

Cotton may be the last face your children and grandchildren sees before the door slams shut to deliver Trump's Final Solution. If you aren't of the pure Aryan Race a la the six white men misrepresenting Arkansas in D.C. today, your days may be numbered. Also the continued poking of Kim Jung Un with a sharp stick may doom us all. If you are still a Cotton supporter, please self-deport ASAP!

DeathbyInches

Sen. Corker, who I disagree with on most issues, is dead on with this. Trump is a danger to the country and Sen. Corker is remembering that his oath of office is not to Trump and his regime, but to the U.S. Constitution.

Rick 1

From the web in response to the Oct. 10 Arkansas Blog post "Mike Pence makes political hay from National Anthem; Trump ready for war":

What one thing do you know for sure when they say that it's not about racism?

Silverback66

Pence should have just said he disagreed with the players. But not go to the stadium with the intention of turning right around and leaving. Imagine all the extra security and inconvience to paying fans wanting to just see a game — all in the name of a publicity stunt.

Still waiting on final totals for the total cost to the taxpayers for this racist PR stunt. There are no figures I can find on secret service and local police costs and support staff in the three various locations. We know this was a preplanned farce because the press corp traveling with Pence was told not to enter the stadium in Indiana because Pence wouldn't be in there very long. But according to the Air Force, the 3 hour 20 minute flight on AF2 from Las Vegas to Indianapolis cost the taxpayers $100,000. Shortly after, the flight from Indianapolis to the republican fundraiser in Los Angeles cost taxpayers $142,500.

Mountaingirl

From the web in response to the Oct. 10 Arkansas Blog post "Gun goddess Jan Morgan is exploring a run for governor":

Might want to leave her in obscurity, Max. With all this Trump Derangement hysteria feeding the mob, any news of Jan would most likely help her win.

Remember, the media mocked Trump, and he won over Obama voters, so you might want to let Jan live in obscurity because all you are doing is helping her win.

Steven E

If the Roy Moore/Bannon branch takes over the Republican Party, and the rest of us let them take over the U.S., we will all get what they deserve.

Silverback66

A Northwest Arkansas TV station has video of her at a Republican event and her criticisms of A$a drew lots of applause. Interesting.

Screen name taken

She looks like another blind ultra-conservative, toeing and towing the party line, no matter how much it hurts regular people. Arkansas Works is working well, whether the President is black or not.

BIGMUSIC

For those folks who think Donald Trump isn't quite nutty enough, now we have this thing.

Doesn't Arkansas already have enough to be embarrassed about?

The problem is, I could drive downtown and find 50 people in a matter of minutes who would think she is the answer to their prayers.

mountaingirl

From the web in response to the Oct. 8 Arkansas Blog post "Huckabee serves up soft balls to Donald Trump":

I didn't watch but from what I've seen the most ridiculous thing Trump said was that he came up with the word "fake"!

I think one of the greatest of all terms I've come up with is 'fake'," he said. I guess other people have used it, perhaps, over the years, but I've never noticed it."

NeverVoteRepublican

My old step-dad would say, "Right there's where two fools came together."

Errol Roberts

From the web in response to the Oct. 6 Arkansas Blog post "Trump administration moves to loosen birth control mandate in health insurance":

Seems that some personal responsibility might be required.

baker

I know, right? Like why should my premiums go to pay for the treatment of some dude's coronary artery disease when he should have taken "personal responsibility" for his health and adopted a vegan diet. Why should my premiums go to pay for the ER treatment of kids sick with measles or whooping-cough because their parent's opposed vaccinations on religious grounds? They should have taken "personal responsibility" for their kid's health. I think this "citing religious or moral objections" is a two-way street. I think that the amount of money my insurance company charges for drug X is outrageously and immorally expensive and thus, "citing religious or moral objections," I will refuse to pay my bill to them. They better just suck it up and write the debt off, cause I got "religious freedom" on my side.

tsallenarng

Birth control protects families as well as men. And who causes pregnancies? Men. Who fathers babies? Men. Who is protected by birth control? Men as well as families. This is just an excuse to weaken maternity and child coverage! But viagra is covered — even for unmarried men. Why should a celibate widow of 17 years pay for men to have relations?

aqua blue

If not now, then when?