Monthly Archives: July 2020

Sign of the Times: Editor resigns over liberal bias at New Yorks leading newspaper | Mulshine – NJ.com

Posted: July 21, 2020 at 11:53 am

A note to the editors of the New York Times:

When Bari Weiss says youre too liberal, youre too liberal.

Weiss is the Times opinion editor who went out last week with a bang by firing off a resignation letter in which she stated that a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isnt a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

That letter caused a big splash in the media, with many outlets labeling Weiss as a conservative.

A conservative?

Heres how Weiss described herself on a widely viewed interview with podcaster Joe Rogan:

Im a centrist. Im a Jewish, center-left on most things, person who lives on the upper west side of Manhattan and is super socially liberal on almost any issue you can choose.

Among those issues, she told Rogan, is the right to keep and bear arms. I would repeal the Second Amendment, she told Rogan.

Theres plenty more where that came from, all of which would exempt Weiss from membership in my personal circle of right-wing reactionaries.

Yet even her tame objections to Times orthodoxy got her harassed by her fellow journalists, Weiss wrote. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action, she wrote. They never are.

In the letter, Weiss also mentioned the recent flap at the Times over the decision to run an op-ed piece by Senator Tom Cotton headlined Send in the Troops in which he advocated using the military to keep the peace in American cities.

This is where the Times truly went over the edge. The op-ed section and the news section are separate entities there, as they are at most newspapers. The writers in the former are supposed to be subjective, the writers in the latter objective.

At least thats the ideal. But many reporters uttered howls of indignation at the thought that the Times ran the piece in question.

This is reminiscent of the flap a few months ago in which the editors at the Hachette book publishing company walked out in opposition to plans to publish Woody Allens recent book.

In a column on that, I wrote that the publisher should have informed the staff that Book editors are a dime a dozen and weve got a lot of dimes.

The same goes for the members of the Times news staff. The publisher should have told the reporters that if they wanted to express their opinions they should resign and apply for work in the opinion section.

But in both cases, the publishers succumbed to the cancel culture. Hachette dropped Allens book and the Times accepted the resignation of the opinion editor.

In the case of the Times, the news staffers employed a particularly devious and dishonest new meme to camouflage their assault on freedom of expression.

Instead of stating frankly their desire to suppress speech with which they disagreed, a number of reporters tweeted out the columns headline followed by the sentiment Running this puts black @NY Times staff in danger.

Just how these staffers were put in danger was not stated. In Cottons op-ed, he argued that the troops would be used to prevent violence, not engage in it. He cites the 1962 decision by President Kennedy to introduce troops to keep the peace when white protesters tried to prevent the integration of the University of Mississippi.

Whether his approach is preferable is subject to debate. But the Times staffers dont want to hear it debated.

I confess I lack whatever gene causes writers to want to suppress the writings of others. I for one enjoy reading the opinions of people with whom I disagree. Most the time I have a horse laugh at their naivete. But sometimes I learn something I didnt know.

Either way, I wouldnt want to suppress such speech. But thats the way the so-called cancel culture works. Its gotten so bad that earlier this month Harpers Magazine ran a letter signed by several hundred writers attacking the culture of stifling speech.

We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters, they wrote. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.

The letter of course soon brought a response from other writers attacking the signers.

The signatories of the letter seem to be suggesting that all viewpoints should be published in opinion pages, with no limits on what those viewpoints might be, they wrote.

I dont know if thats what those signatories were suggesting.

But it sounds good to me.

ADD - ANDREW SULLIVAN GOT THE SAME TREATMENT:

Later in the week, writer Andrew Sullivan, who is considerably more conservative than Weiss, was squeezed out at New York Magazine. Note the same meme of a phony physical threat to justify suppression of speech. Heres what Sullivan said of his critics at the magazine:

They seem to believe, and this is increasingly the orthodoxy in mainstream media, that any writer not actively committed to critical theoryin questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space. Actually attacking,and even mocking, critical theorys ideas and methods, as I have done continually in this space, is therefore out of sync with the values of Vox Media. That, to the best of my understanding, is why Im out of here.

Read the original:

Sign of the Times: Editor resigns over liberal bias at New Yorks leading newspaper | Mulshine - NJ.com

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Sign of the Times: Editor resigns over liberal bias at New Yorks leading newspaper | Mulshine – NJ.com

Liberal Media Scream: In CNNs world, conservative outlets, not Times, Post, are intolerant – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 11:53 am

This weeks Liberal Media Scream features CNN wading into the intolerance debate where it finds that its the conservatives outlets, and even religious colleges, that are close-minded.

In the wake of New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss falling victim to the cancel culture for daring to run pieces that went counter to left-wing orthodoxy, CNN brought aboard a guest to defend the New York Times and claim the intolerance of opinion is on the Right, not the Left.

I do think there is a growing intolerance of oppositional political views, Jill Filipovic said on Reliable Sources, but not at mainstream and progressive outlets.

Filipovic, an opinion writer and author of the upcoming book, OK BOOMER, LET'S TALK: How My Generation Got Left Behind, said, Its really conservative news outlets, as well as conservative institutions like religious colleges, where youre lacking diversity of opinion.

From Sundays Reliable Sources on CNN:

Brian Stelter: Is there growing intolerance in American newsrooms? Is what people like Bari Weiss, is what theyre pointing to a real and serious threat?

Jill Filipovic: Yes, I do think that there is growing intolerance of oppositional political views. I think where we get it wrong in this conversation is looking at mostly mainstream and progressive outlets. The reality is, places like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, host a really wide variety of perspectives. Both the Post and the Times have conservative columnists. Theres really not a day that goes by that you cant find conservative perspectives on those websites. You really cant say the same thing about Fox News, about Breitbart, about web sites like Townhall.com. Its really conservative news outlets, as well as conservative institutions like religious colleges, where youre lacking diversity of opinion. And what I see happening here is, yes, pointing to something that is a frustrating problem, but by honing in on, quote/unquote, liberal outlets, I think you really miss the fuller story and the ways in which I think the Right is really working the refs on this one.

Media Research Center Vice President of Research Brent Baker explains our weekly pick: Talk about working the refs. In what alternative universe does Filipovic live? The term cancel culture was created to describe what mainstream and progressive outlets do to those who dare stray from the approved left-wing view of an issue. Cancel culture is real at liberal outlets and has cost several journalists their jobs. And theres a lot more diversity of political views on Fox News Channel than on CNN or MSNBC. When did you last hear a pro-Trump voice on CNN or MSNBC?

Rating: Four out of five screams.

Originally posted here:

Liberal Media Scream: In CNNs world, conservative outlets, not Times, Post, are intolerant - Washington Examiner

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal Media Scream: In CNNs world, conservative outlets, not Times, Post, are intolerant – Washington Examiner

Opinion | Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case – POLITICO

Posted: at 11:53 am

Lets be clear: As coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths are surging to record levels in states across America, and the lifeline of unemployment benefits keeping 30 million people afloat expires at the end of the month, the Republican Senate has decided to provide more funding for the Pentagon than the next 11 nations military budgets combined.

Under this legislation, over half of our discretionary budget would go to the Department of Defense at a time when tens of millions of Americans are food insecure and over a half-million Americans are sleeping out on the street. After adjusting for inflation, this bill would spend more money on the Pentagon than we did during the height of the Vietnam War even as up to 22 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes and health workers are still forced to reuse masks, gloves and gowns.

Moreover, this extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only agency of our federal government that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are making enormous profits while paying their CEOs outrageous compensation packages, and when the so-called War on Terror will cost some $6 trillion.

Let us never forget what Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former four-star general, said in 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

What Eisenhower said was true 67 years ago, and it is true today.

If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything it is that national security means a lot more than building bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction. National security also means doing everything we can to improve the lives of tens of millions of people living in desperation who have been abandoned by our government decade after decade.

That is why I have introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate will be voting on during the week of July 20th, and the House will follow suit with a companion effort led by Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Our amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in savings to invest in communities that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass incarceration, decades of neglect and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every state in the country would be able to use these funds to create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public hospitals, libraries and clean drinking water facilities. These communities would also receive federal funding to hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities or trade schools.

This amendment gives my Senate colleagues a fundamental choice to make. They can vote to spend more money on endless wars in the Middle East while failing to provide economic security to millions of people in the United States. Or they can vote to spend less money on nuclear weapons and cost overruns, and more to rebuild struggling communities in their home states.

In Dr. Kings 1967 speech, he warned that a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

He was right. At a time when half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, when over 40 million Americans are living in poverty, and when 87 million lack health insurance or are underinsured, we are approaching spiritual death.

At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and when millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death.

At a time when we have no national testing program, no adequate production of protective gear and no commitment to a free vaccine, while remaining the only major country where infections spiral out of control, we are approaching spiritual death.

At a time when over 60,000 Americans die each year because they cant afford to get to a doctor on time, and one out of five Americans cant afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, we are approaching spiritual death.

Now, at this unprecedented moment in American history, it is time to rethink what we value as a society and to fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing that money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let's get it done.

See the rest here:

Opinion | Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case - POLITICO

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Opinion | Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case – POLITICO

Liberal MPs to pay back allowance claimed in error after ABC investigation, but Premier denies deliberate wrongdoing – ABC News

Posted: at 11:53 am

Three South Australian Liberal MPs, including two Cabinet ministers, will be forced to repay more than $70,000 of taxpayers' money claimed in accommodation allowances.

SA Premier Steven Marshall said the payments were claimed in error and denied there had been any deliberate wrongdoing.

It comes as it was announced on Tuesday that some SA Liberal MPs will be forced to repay money incorrectly claimed under a parliamentary allowance provided for country MPs to stay in the city on official business.

Mr Marshall said some MPs have come forward to him admitting "administrative errors" in claiming the allowance, which is worth more than $31,000 a year.

"There have been some administrative errors and I've made it clear to my team they need to make it clear what those administrative errors were and rectify them as quickly as possible, and all of that information will be provided to the Parliament this afternoon," Mr Marshall said.

"But I'm not of the opinion there's been any deliberate dishonesty."

The revelation came minutes before the Parliament released 10 years' worth of claims under the allowance, prompted by an ABC investigation into the eligibility of Legislative Council President Terry Stephens to claim.

A series of ABC stories demonstrated Mr Stephens spent significant time at his million-dollar-plus suburban Adelaide property while claiming tens of thousands of dollars in allowance.

Those questions have now been referred to the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bruce Lander, while the Auditor-General, Taxation Commissioner and Electoral Commissioner have also been asked to examine the senior Liberal MP's living arrangements.

Infrastructure Minister Stephan Knoll will repay more than $29,000 for all Country Members Accommodation Allowance payments made since December 2018.

He has also committed to repay another night's allowance from April 2018, saying the payment was claimed by "administrative error".

Primary Industries Minister Tim Whetstone unreservedly apologised for claiming in error more than $20,000 for 90 nights from 2012 until now.

However, he will only have to repay $6,993 for nights claimed before he became a minister in 2018.

That's because since becoming a minister he has spent nights in Adelaide beyond the annual allowance cap of 135 nights and some of those additional nights have now been substituted for those he incorrectly claimed.

Liberal backbencher Fraser Ellis has also agreed to repay $42,130.

Emails from all three MPs were tabled in Parliament, amid a tranche of allowance claims made by regional MPs dating back a decade.

Mr Knoll and Mr Ellis's commitments to repay are based upon wording in a Remuneration Tribunal determination, which require members to incur "actual expenditure" in order to claim the allowance.

The ABC has previously revealed that Mr Ellis stayed rent free at the Norwood residence of fellow Liberal MP Terry Stephens while claiming the allowance.

Mr Whetstone said an audit by his staff identified "a number of administrative errors where claims had been made for nights which were not eligible as required by the guidelines".

He said he took "full responsibility".

"I apologise to the people of Chaffey and to South Australia for those errors," he said.

"But what I will say is that all of that information has now been provided to the Parliament and it is now publicly available."

Mr Knoll said he believes he "complied with all of the guidelines in relation to the claiming of this allowance".

"I do stay with my parents and I do incur expenses when I do so, but it is fair to say that since the November 2018 determination, there has been ambiguity around this allowance," he said.

"Until that ambiguity is resolved, I have sought to, out of an abundance of caution and to put this issue beyond doubt, I've repaid that money and I am not going to claim the allowance until that ambiguity is resolved."

A further two regional Liberal MPs, Adrian Pederick and Peter Treloar, have retrospectively amended their returns to change dates that they stayed in Adelaide, but have not sought to repay money.

Mr Marshall admitted greater transparency was needed, and said both the Speaker of the House of Assembly Vincent Tarzia and Legislative Council President Terry Stephens would push for records of the Country Members Accommodation Allowance to be published monthly.

Mr Marshall said the government had also written to the Auditor-General, seeking increased scrutiny, including random audits.

"We need to assure the people of SA that when their money is spent it's spent in accordance with the guidelines," Mr Marshall said.

He said the government would also write to the state's remuneration tribunal seeking "greater certainty and clarity" over when the allowance could be claimed.

"I think there has been ambiguity over a long period of time and it's now time to clean up this situation and provide much greater certainty going forward," the Premier said.

However, Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas said both Mr Knoll and Mr Whetstone should be dumped from Cabinet.

"This is unacceptable the Premier's got to show leadership," he said.

"I mean, we're talking about taxpayers' money here going into the direct pocket of members of Parliament and what Steven Marshall wants to do is have everyone look the other way."

Do you know more about this story? Email SA.tips@abc.net.au.

Go here to see the original:

Liberal MPs to pay back allowance claimed in error after ABC investigation, but Premier denies deliberate wrongdoing - ABC News

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal MPs to pay back allowance claimed in error after ABC investigation, but Premier denies deliberate wrongdoing – ABC News

Bennett University adds Computer Application as eleventh Major in Liberal Arts – Times of India

Posted: at 11:53 am

Among the courses that form part of the Computer Application Major are Computing Skills, Data Science, Cloud Computing and Cyber Security. These will equip the student to take up a career in a host of Computer Application areas.

The addition of Computer Application will benefit students of other Majors too. For instance, the Journalism, Marketing or Economics students can take Data Mining as an Elective. Advertising & Public Relations students can take Introduction to Social Media Analysis or E-Commerce and Social Media Analytics as their Electives.

Similarly, students of Psychology and Philosophy can study Human Computer Interaction as part of their Electives while students of all Majors can enlarge their horizons by studying subjects such as Introduction to Forensics and Cyber Law.

A big advantage for students opting for Computer Application Major is that it will be taught by the same Faculty that teaches B.Tech and BCA courses in Bennett Universitys Computer Science Engineering department. The students can therefore expect their learning to be at par with all other Computer Science graduates.

Another major advantage for them will be their exposure to ten other Liberal Arts disciplines. They will have both breadth and depth of knowledge when they pass out as Liberal Arts graduates from Bennett University.

Or Call: Contact number - 1800 103 8484

Disclaimer: Content Produced by Bennett University

Link:

Bennett University adds Computer Application as eleventh Major in Liberal Arts - Times of India

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Bennett University adds Computer Application as eleventh Major in Liberal Arts – Times of India

Our View: We should demand that they stop – Daily Astorian

Posted: at 11:53 am

George Floyds death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May forced all of us to examine our attitudes toward institutional racism.

Protests around the country, from big cities like Portland to small towns like Astoria, are a potential turning point. White people who live in communities with very few Black, Hispanic or other people of color are confronting issues that for generations have been convenient to ignore.

One of the most difficult is that the police act on our behalf, using force derived from the governments we elect.

We have been fortunate on the North Coast that protests have been mostly peaceful.

In Portland, protests over the past several weeks have often spiraled into violence. Scenes of vandalism and looting, along with police overreach in attacking journalists and legal observers, have been shared across the United States.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble, but in nightly clashes downtown near the Multnomah County Justice Center and the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, demonstrators and police have struggled to find the line between protest and riot.

We trust Portland the people who live there, the police, the mayor and other city leaders can find that line.

Unfortunately, the Trump administrations misguided decision to deploy militarized federal agents has dragged the entire country into the streets of Portland.

Last week, a federal agent acting on our behalf, using force derived from the government we elected fired a less-lethal round at a protesters head, causing critical injuries. Oregon Public Broadcasting and other news media have reported that federal agents are patrolling in unmarked vans, snatching protesters who do not appear to be immediate threats to federal property.

The New York Times reported that federal agents on the ground in Portland were not specifically trained in riot control or mass demonstrations.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a federal lawsuit to try to prevent federal agents from detaining protesters in Portland without identifying themselves or without probable cause or warrants. The lawsuit names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Protective Service.

The lawsuit alleges their tactics violate the First Amendment right to peacefully gather, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Citizens who are reasonably afraid of being picked up and shoved into unmarked vans possibly by federal officers, possibly by individuals opposed to the protests will feel compelled to stay away, for their own personal safety, and will therefore be unable to express themselves in the way that they have the right to do, the lawsuit states.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Gov. Kate Brown have made it clear the federal agents are not welcome. The federal elected officials who represent us U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley and U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici demanded the Trump administration remove the forces.

Wyden, in an op-ed for NBC News, faulted President Donald Trump. Not content with simply dropping squads of federal agents into my hometown to clash with peaceful protesters, as he first did in early July after signing an executive order to supposedly protect monuments from protesters, Trump and his acting secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, have now unleashed these agents like an occupying army complete with fatigues, military-style equipment and tactics that are utterly unacceptable in an American city.

These invaders are mounting this assault against my city on the flimsiest of justifications: While Acting Secretary Wolf rants about law and order, most of the incidents of violent anarchists he cites are actually graffiti, or low-level vandalism.

Portland was chosen as a stage for the Trump administration to make a political statement in an election year. But it would be a mistake to view what has been happening on the streets only through a partisan political lens.

Just like nearly everyone familiar with Floyds death saw the injustice, anyone looking at what federal agents have done in Portland should see the assault on our civil liberties.

They are acting on our behalf, using force derived from the government we elected. We should all demand that they stop.

See the article here:
Our View: We should demand that they stop - Daily Astorian

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Our View: We should demand that they stop – Daily Astorian

Trump working with Bush torture lawyer to cut Congress out of lawmaking: report – Salon

Posted: at 11:52 am

President Donald Trump suggested in aFox News Sundayinterviewthat he planned to act beyond his legal authority to implement sweepingchanges to immigration and health care policiesbased onan interpretation of a recent Supreme Court rulinggrantinghim "powers that nobody thought the president had."

Axios reportedthat the legally precariousstrategy,which cuts Congressout of the lawmaking process, relies on a theory of executive power floated in June by John Yoo, the George W. Bush administration lawyer who drafted the memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique.

The first of the controversialorders will coverimmigration, per Axios. Trump told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that he would also invoke the authority to create "a full and complete health care plan."

You heard me yesterday. We're signing a health care plan within two weeksa full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do. So we're going to solve we're going to sign an immigration plan, a health care planand various other plans. And nobody will have done what I'm doing in the next four weeks.

The Supreme Court gave the president of the United States powers that nobody thought the president hadby approving, by doing what they did their decision on DACA. And DACA's going to be taken care of also. But we're getting rid of it, because we're going to replace it with something much better. What we got rid of already, which was most of Obamacare the individual mandate. And that I've already won on. And we won also on the Supreme Court. But the decision by the Supreme Court on DACA allows me to do things on immigration, on health care, on other things that we've never done before. And you're going to find it to be a very exciting two weeks.

Yoo argued in a National Reviewarticle that a recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)programempoweredthe president to bypass Congress through prosecutorial discretion: choosing not to enforce federal laws.

While the orders may be illegal, Trump would likely be able to run out the clock in the courts until Election Day, according to Yoo. Itwould also create legacy headaches for any successor, who would have to enforce the lawsunless and until the courts overturn them,Yoo claimed.

"SupposePresident Donald Trump decided to create a nationwide right to carry guns openly," Yoo wrote. "He could declare that he would not enforce federal firearms laws, and that a new 'Trump permit' would free any holder of state and local gun-control restrictions."

"Even if Trump knew that his scheme lacked legal authority, he could get away with it for the length of his presidency," he added. "And, moreover, even if courts declared the permit illegal, his successor would have to keep enforcing the program for another year or two."

"According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Constitution makes it easy for presidents to violate the law, but reversing such violations difficult especially for their successors," he concluded.

Yoo is most famousfor what has become known as the "torture memo," which justified the Bush administration's use ofwaterboarding via a constitutional reading called "the unitary executive theory."

As thetheory goes, in wartime a president can exercise virtually unlimited authority, which can only be checked by Congress'spending power.Because the "war on terror" might nothave a definitive end, the president wouldhave nearly dictatorial power in this realmfor the foreseeable future, including deploying federal troops for police actions and suspending the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Axios reported that Yoo's article has been spotted on Trump's desk, and the president had brought it up in meetings with aides.Yoo told the outletthat he had discussed the theory with White House aides in recent virtual meetings.

When Trump firstmentioned the plan, ina recent Telemundo interview, he drew fire from within the Republican tent.Not only would the orderinclude DACA, which the administrationjust spent years fighting to overturn,Trump claimed it would also createa path to citizenship, as well.

"I'm going to make DACA a part of it," said the president. "We're going to have a road to citizenship."

The White House immediately walked back that claim,which runs the risk of alienatingGOPimmigration hawks, as well asthe anti-immigrantbase which carried Trump through the 2016 primaries and general election.

"This does not include amnesty," White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement.

Fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas quickly tweeted that "it would be a HUGE mistake if Trump tries to illegally expand amnesty."

"There is ZERO constitutional authority for a President to create a 'road to citizenship"by executive fiat," hewrote.

At the same time, Trump saidhe would change over toa merit-basedimmigration system, as opposed to one based on family connections,something which anti-immigration hardliners like senior White House adviser StephenMillerhave wanted for years.

Under Trump's earlier "merit-based" proposal, immigrants would be selected through a point-based system, which scores for "extraordinary talent, professional and specialized vocations and exceptional academic track records." However, the Republican-led Senate was not on board.

In 2018, Trump offered apath to citizenship as a concession to get Congress to authorize $25 billion for hiswall along the Mexican border, but lawmakers balked. In 2019, the Democratic-ledHouse passed a bill which would allow Dreamers to apply for citizenship, but the Senate still has not voted on it. The White House said at the time that Trump would veto such a bill.

It was not immediately clear how Trump would craft such an executive order to create a health care plan. He made the "repeal and replace" of Obamacare a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign, but allefforts to secure enough Republican votes in Congress failed.

The rest is here:
Trump working with Bush torture lawyer to cut Congress out of lawmaking: report - Salon

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Trump working with Bush torture lawyer to cut Congress out of lawmaking: report – Salon

Understanding ‘Qualified Immunity’ And Its Place In The Police Reform Debate – WBUR

Posted: at 11:52 am

One area of significant contention in the state senate's recently passed police reform bill was whether to limit "qualified immunity," a legal doctrine that protects police and other public employees from lawsuits.

Qualified immunity has been both a lightning rod in local and national police reform debates, and a source of confusion about what it actually entails.

We turn to Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge, WBUR legal analyst and senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, on what qualified immunity is and why many law enforcement officials are trying to hold on to it.

On how the "qualified immunity" doctrine came about:

"The doctrine is a judge-made doctrine that came about in pretty much the late 1970s and early 1980s. And it was literally a concern that constitutional criminal law, in other words, the ways in which the Constitution limited or affected police behavior that it was unfair because of new developments in constitutional law, to have a police officer bound by those new developments. Famously, one judge said ... a cop on the beat shouldn't have to be reading the advance sheets (the ways in which people get notice of opinions). And it was really phrased in terms of a police officer could not anticipate legal developments. It was focused in on the big and new constitutional changes that were going on after the Warren Court and said, 'How could a police officer know about those kinds of changes?' But over time, it has evolved into something really quite a bit different. It's not just saying a police officer couldn't have known what the Supreme Court decided yesterday about the Fourth Amendment, but it has come to be that the police officer, for him to be held liable, there had to have been an existing precedent on the specific fact in question."

"Let me give you an example: There was a case of a SWAT team that fired tear gas grenades into a house carrying someone they wanted to arrest. That person wasn't there. That caused considerable damage. The Court of Appeals said, 'Well, there's no qualified immunity because there was no precedent involving tear gas and houses.' Now, there was precedent about the scope of searches, etc., but there was no specific precedent that dealt with ... tear gas going into a house, or a case of ... a police officer [who] shot a dog trying to apprehend someone in a backyard, and wound up shooting a young girl. And the court literally said that the child's right not to be accidentally shot in the leg is not clearly established. So [what] I'm saying is, over time this became not 'How could a police officer have known, you know, the latest constitutional issue,' but ... a police officer gets excused if there was not an existing precedent involving the facts that are in his case. Well, there never is an existing precedent involving those specific facts."

On why it's front and center in the current police reform debate:

"Well, what happens is that the 'immunity' entitles a judge to dismiss the case without it ever getting to a jury. While a jury ... might get the issue of what comprises excessive force or what comprises an unfair search, qualified immunity entitles a police officer who's being sued to move to dismiss, and the case is then gone. And it's gone in a way that is particularly troubling. The judge is supposed to decide, or at one point was supposed to decide, was the plaintiff's rights violated? And then the second question is, was the law clearly established? Over time, and because of the Supreme Court, judges no longer ... answer the first question: whether someone's rights were violated. So that meant the law is not ever going to be established even going forward, because case after case was saying, essentially, 'I don'tknow whether [the police officer] did anything wrong, but it wasn't clearly established.' "

On how qualified immunity plays out in lawsuits against law enforcement today:

"The notion that a police officer who does something that comprises a crime will be punished and go to jail is true, although we recognize that that doesn't happen very often, as we saw in the George Floyd case [with criminal charges]. But we're not talking about criminal prosecution here, because that, to some degree, is the most extreme example of wrongful conduct. We're talking about a civil suit, if someone violated your constitutional rights. It may not comprise a crime, but it was essentially violating your constitutional rights. ... [The police officer] did something wrong, he went outside the boundaries of what the Constitution allows. To say that people can sue, yeah, you can sue and it will be dismissed if it doesn't fit [these], in my view, absurd requirements. So it'll be dismissed. ... This is like constitutional malpractice. It's as if saying the only way you can deal with a doctor that left his instruments in your body after the surgery is if it's a crime. Well, we're not talking crime. We're talking about civil damages for violation of a constitutional right. So the fact that people can be sent to jail doesn't control conduct. What controls conduct is lawsuits."

On the argument that eliminating qualified immunity will put undue financial and civil risk on law enforcement, curb their behaviors, and make them overly cautious:

"It is a false argument. Ninety-nine point eight percent of cases that are brought I've looked this up of constitutional claims against police officers are paid for by the government or even sometimes the union. In other words, the municipality or the state will pay whatever damages are assigned to the police officer. So there is really no financial penalty at all. And what you're talking about is having a range of conduct that may well be wrong, that is broader than the range of conduct that we allow now, and allowing those cases to go to go to trial before a jury. So it's really not an impediment to the police at all, any more than malpractice since actions against doctors keep doctors from doing surgery. Good doctors do not have a problem [with that]."

On if the end of qualified immunity could affect police officers decisions:

"That's really the usual kind of scare tactics that the police use whenever there are efforts to curb their power. The fact that those who are engaged in malpractice like a doctor or a lawyer can be sued for it and wind up with damages against them, doesn't stop people to being doctors or lawyers. It makes them exercise more care. And that's exactly what we're trying to do. So that's just simply absurd. If they think twice before they violate someone's constitutional rights, rather than, as Justice Sotomayor just said in a case where she dissented, she says, with qualified immunity ... it's the wrong signal: shoot first and think later, and count on being exonerated."

Read more:
Understanding 'Qualified Immunity' And Its Place In The Police Reform Debate - WBUR

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Understanding ‘Qualified Immunity’ And Its Place In The Police Reform Debate – WBUR

When they come for you – Sharyl Attkisson

Posted: at 11:52 am

The following is from Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson. Watch the story by clicking the link at the end.

If you think youre hearing more accounts than ever about improper government intrusion into our lives, youre a lot like author and journalist David Kirby. He researched that for new book When They Come For You: How Police and Government Are Trampling Our Liberties - and How to Take Them Back.

Sharyl: When you say, "When They Come for You," who is the "They"?

Kirby: The "they" can be anything from a local social service's agent in your community, to the president of the United States. This goes on at the state, federal and local level. It goes on in red states and blue states, rich states, and poor states, big cities, and small towns. I found violations of the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, freedom of speech, people having their homes raided without a warrant. People having their cars taken away from them because they were suspected of a crime even though they didn't commit a crime. People in debtor's prison because they can't pay their court fees and fines, and of course child protective services that come in the middle of the night, and just yank your kid away.

Sharyl: Do you think there's been an escalation in events like this, or are we just able to find them, and notice them more?

Kirby: Its a very good question. There's not a lot of hard data unfortunately. There is more monitoring. Social media, people have cameras with them everywhere so it's more noticeable. But I do think it is getting worse. I think particularly with surveillance, with the First Amendment, with freedom of the press, freedom of protesters. I think it started after 911, the PATRIOT Act. It got worse under Obama, as you well know, with surveillance of the media. Now I think it's getting even worse, particularly cracking down on protesters, spying on protesters, and doing things like threatening to sue media outlets for libel, or wanting to change the libel laws.

Sharyl: Many Americans say, "I obey the law. If the government wants to surveil me, look at my computer, I don't really care." Is there a counterpoint to that?

Kirby: I mean that's the Fourth Amendment. It's the most threatened amendment in our country, I think, after the First Amendment, which is a close second. But we need to protect those protections for everybody, and once you just acquiesce and say, "Well, it's okay if they're listening in on my phone call," then the door starts opening wider and wider.

Sharyl: Is it fair to say you consider yourself a liberal, or a liberal Democrat?

Kirby: Im a lefty. Yes. Left of center.

Sharyl: Do you notice any division? Is one party or the other better or worse at any of this?

Kirby: Theyre both bad to be honest. I can pick apart, and my book does, and I'm equally critical of the Obama Administration as the Trump Administration. A lot of my stories take place in blue states.

Sharyl: But what do you attribute that to, if there isn't even an ideological divide into where this happens?

Kirby: Well, I think when you talk about ideology, I think people on the far left and on the far right are actually a lot more united over these issues than they realize. People on the left don't like government intrusion any more than anybody else does. It is more of a libertarian point of view. I call myself a lefty libertarian, which sounds oxymoronic, but I figured it out. I would say people like Rand Paul is certainly bringing these things up once in a while. He has sponsored some bills in Congress. They go absolutely nowhere. He does get Democratic cosponsors. There are people, progressives, who are interested in reforming these issues, and reigning in the government. But like I said, it goes nowhere.

Sharyl: What would you say is the takeaway message you would like people to walk away from reading your book with?

Kirby: Know your Bill of Rights. Read them, study them, know what protections you are offered under them in case you ever need to use them, and if you are concerned about these things, it's up to us. These are our personal freedoms, and they are under attack.

A new report from Pew Research Center says a majority of Americans, 64%, are concerned about how much data is collected about them by the government online.

Click the link below to watch the story:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/when-they-come-for-you

Read the original here:
When they come for you - Sharyl Attkisson

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on When they come for you – Sharyl Attkisson

AG Rosenblum: Feds operating with no transparency – KOIN.com

Posted: at 11:52 am

A breakdown of the lawsuit against federal agencies over their protest response

by: Sheridan Kowta, KOIN 6 News Staff

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a lawsuit Friday against federal law enforcement agencies over the tactics they have used at protests while deployed in Portland, which includes allegedly seizing and detaining protesters without probable cause. On Sunday, she spoke with KOIN 6 News about the demands of the lawsuit and how she believes federal officers are escalating the violence.

I think every American needs to be concerned about whats happening here in Portland. These federal agencies are operating with no transparency and against the will of just about every leader in our state, Rosenblum said. We took a look at this because things seemed, by Friday morning, not to be improving.

Part of the lawsuit includes a request for declarations that the tactics used by federal agents are in violation of both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

We are asking that there be a declaration that their conduct, that their tactics are in violation of the First Amendment: peoples rights to protest, peoples rights to be on the streets, to be declaring their opposition to police brutality, to racial injustices, said Rosenblum. And so, that is what is known as a prior restraint on a persons right to conduct themselves publicly in this manner under the First Amendment.

Rosenblum referenced unreasonable seizures in instances where people were allegedly grabbed off the street and put in unmarked rental carsa story first published by Oregon Public Broadcasting.

These are not people who are being found to be engaging in illegal conduct at the time that they are grabbed. In fact, one young man was just simply walking home after the protestMr. Pettibone, whose affidavit is included in our complaint that we filed, said Rosenblum.

She said the lawsuit specifically asks for a ruling from the court that permanently restrains federal officers from engaging in these tactics and requires them to do three things:

Not to arrest individuals without probable cause or a warrant; identifying themselves and their agency before detaining or arresting anyone; explaining to any person detained or arrested that the person is being detained or arrested and the basis for the action, Rosenblum said.

This is a very straight-forward lawsuit, she said.

It was filed Friday night, and her office also plans to file a motion for a temporary restraining order in the coming days.

We believe strongly that the deployment of federal law enforcement in Portland has nothing to do with public safety and in fact, is actually escalating the dangerous situation here in our town and we wanted to do something to try to help, said Rosenblum.

Follow KOIN 6 for the latest news and weather

Continue reading here:
AG Rosenblum: Feds operating with no transparency - KOIN.com

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on AG Rosenblum: Feds operating with no transparency – KOIN.com